Alaska National Wildlife Refuge Drilling

                Although this issue about drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) has dropped out of notice in the mainstream media lately, it is important that Americans understand just exactly what is at stake with the proposal. The oil companies and their supporters argue that opening up ANWR to drilling is essential to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and exploiting underdeveloped domestic resources.  The environmentalists, along with native Alaskans and others, argue that the proposed ANWR site doesn’t contain enough oil to justify the incursion of heavy machinery and permanent human presence on pristine wilderness. Neither Presidential candidate has endorsed the idea of drilling in ANWR.

 

                ANWR is surrounded by drilling operations, most of them centered around Prudhoe Bay and extending into the Arctic waters, including offshore rigs. Most of what oil exists there is located along the coastline well East of Prudhoe Bay. The proposed site is nowhere near the known reserves along the coast and is far inland from the coastal deposits.

 

                The proposed site is in the middle of nowhere in terms of proximity to modern human developments. The proposed site is located in pristine wilderness inhabited only sparsely by native Alaskans who live in a manner which creates little disturbance upon the otherwise natural ecosystem. The primary residents of the proposed development site are caribou.

 

                I have heard it said that there is nothing in the ecosystem of the proposed ANWR drilling site that would be disturbed by the oilfield operations. Tundra, as understood by many people, looks like “wasteland” or arctic desert, and has no apparent redeeming value in terms of human surface exploitation; this has been noted as reason enough to justify below ground exploitation. However, the proposed ANWR drilling site, while appearing uninhabited by significant human or animal populations, is, once a year, very much utilized by a significant population. The proposed ANWR drilling site is right in the middle of the seasonal breeding grounds for one of the largest caribou herds in Alaska. Caribou tend to be adversely impacted by human development, preferring avoidance of human contact. Human development causes significant changes in caribou behavior.  The construction and operation of drilling platforms would have significant impact upon the migration and breeding of this herd, possibly to the detriment of caribou populations not only in Alaska, but in Canada as well.

 

                Finally, according to U.S. Geological Survey data, there is no oil within five miles of the proposed drilling site. There is no oil there! Most of the known reserves are being tapped, why would the oil companies want to erect structures and engage in drilling operations where there is no oil? It seems they want to drill in ANWR because the operations would be taxpayer funded at no cost to them and would give them, by overcoming these concerns, the precedent, and, by failing to produce, the excuse, to expand operations into other sensitive and protected areas where oil might be found.

 

                The oil reserves of northern Alaska in the area around the Alaska National Wildlife refuge are being exploited and probably to the full extent desired by the oil companies. The proposed drilling site, despite the oil companies’ assertions, is important to at least one species of native fauna, the caribou. These caribou would be adversely affected by oil-field operations in their breeding grounds. There is no oil worth mentioning in the proposed drilling area. The oil companies are engaged in a power play, seeking to push an illogical, irrational, irresponsible, and harmful measure in order to advance a taxpayer funded agenda for expansion of drilling in protected areas, while thousands of tapped, usable wells across the U.S. remain silent and motionless. The proposed ANWR drilling is nothing but an attempt by wealth to flaunt its power and influence.

Getting More Local: Damon Thayer

                Being recently arrived in Georgetown, Kentucky, I have only just begun to gain an understanding of the practices, policies, and players in the local and state political arenas. As some may have realized, and others may not, I consider myself an independent and have viewpoints, taken altogether, that do not match either major party. However, this election season finds me leaning more and more towards support of the policies and candidates from the Democratic Party.

               

                Recently, I have had an opportunity to review the positions and policies, as well as a couple of speeches, of the incumbent Republican state senator, Damon Thayer, and am completely unimpressed. Further exasperating my ill feelings towards his candidacy is the result of an opportunity to meet with the man during Georgetown’s Latin Festival held two weekends ago.

 

                Damon Thayer voted for a Kentucky public education funding cut of about 10%, while shifting more state funds toward his friends in the horse racing industry. Thayer has also supported legislative assaults on women’s rights and issues. Senator Thayer has been listed as the number two conservative legislator in the state, having been listed number one last year, and missing a return by only one point, by an ostensibly non-partisan agency. This agency ranks state legislators in accordance with their voting records’ reflection of the interests of “growth”. Upon closer examination, that growth is not related to the consumer economy, but rather business-to-business and business-to-government. In other words, Damon Thayer has consistently voted in the interest of big business receiving tax payer dollars while government and programs get cut.

 

                Damon Thayer’s Fourth of July speech, given in Georgetown, was loaded with hyperbole, the Senator essentially claiming that America had no problems and that everything would get even better because we are free. He denied that more Americans than ever are without healthcare coverage and he denied that the American economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression. And while claiming that all American problems could be fixed simply by freedom, Damon Thayer had the temerity to suggest that anyone in disagreement was uninformed and disloyal. He referenced and quoted John Adams, second President of the United States, in his speech before Georgetown, sorely abusing the words and dignity of that great man. The speech given by Thayer represents all that is wrong with the Republican worldview wherein only those who agree are true Americans and those who dispute are “run[ning] our great Nation into the ground..,”; and therein lies the truth behind his agenda. By capitalizing “nation” in his speech, Senator Thayer reveals that he is not a patriot and that he does not truly believe in freedom. He reveals that he is a nationalist, a person who believes that the people serve in the interest of the government and that he is a fascist, that disagreement with his agenda is anti-American.

 

                If nothing else, I would vote against this man simply to remove his tainted and poisoned voice from the state senate.

What this Election is About

War on Terror vs. War on Islam

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

Freedom vs. Fascism

Inclusion vs. Exclusion

Economic Stability and Expansion vs. Recession and Depression

Employment vs. Outsourcing

Security vs. Fear-mongering

Dialogue vs. Diatribe

Diplomacy vs. War

Acceptance vs. Assimilation

Diversity vs. Homogeneity

Responsibility vs. Greed

Informed Opinion vs. Disjointed Rants

Taxpayer support of the government vs. Taxpayer support of corporate America

Progress vs. Regress

A Constitutional Democratic Republic vs. a Corporate American Empire

I leave it to the reader to assign the parties and candidates to their respective columns.

Conspiracy and Complicity

                It has been suggested that I am one of those who subscribes to conspiracy theories. Actually, I believe more in complicity and consensus. All human endeavors requiring the work of more than one are conspiracies; it is simply a matter of determining criminality that makes the primary difference for most people. The difference is also found in premeditation; if the actions, as usually discovered to be, are the consequence of correcting or covering mistakes, then complicity is the more likely definition. We see complicity in all manner of everyday occurrences. Professional courtesy, codes of silence, not “rocking the boat” are all examples of complicity.

 

                The lack of a meaningful American public school education in history, social studies, and civics (political science) is not caused by some grand conspiracy; it is caused by a relatively uniform desire to not offend parents of the majority demographic bloc. That majority bloc remains white, and has the greatest influence through greater representation in taxation and voting. Primary and secondary school textbooks are not written in a vacuum, they are crafted with excessive influence by organizations which are white, Christian, conservative, and rabidly pro-American. Only recently have these organizations lost their absolute stranglehold on textbook publishers. These organizations want their distorted views preserved, and textbook publishers want their books sold. Meanwhile, the best meaning of teachers are held captive to time, resources, and, sadly, politics. If a teacher expands beyond the text and curriculum, the teacher faces all sorts of possible consequences at the hands of the community and system. Without meaning or even necessarily wanting to do so, publishers and teachers alike are held captive to what has, for over half a century, been viewed as the “standard” view of American history wherein America is land of the free and home of the brave, ever struggling, however imperfectly, to attain a lofty goal of egalitarianism, justice, and liberty. This lack of American school children learning the truth in American history is not the result of conspiracy; it is the result of complicity in an environment of threatened sales and careers.

 

                In politics, the case is not well made for many incidents being conspiratorial; the most common events resulting in an appearance of conspiracy are usually the consequence of honest or unthinking mistakes needing correction.  The aftermath is stream of efforts to “fix” a problem created, most likely, by insufficient attention to detail. These efforts usually require a broader base of action than the original mistake, so it looks as if more people are involved. To the average citizen viewing such mistakes and their necessary corrective action, it looks as though the entire government was involved, when, in fact, the entire government only became active after the error. Of course, “mistakes” and “corrections” don’t begin to address the Bush Administration’s actions with regard to Iraq, the War on Terror, the EPA and global warming, the Department of Justice firing of US Attorneys, Valerie Plame being exposed, rise of fuel costs beginning immediately after the Bush “tax rebate”, unilateral no-bid contracting, and other scandals plaguing this administration and benefiting its benefactors. Regrettably, all of the preceding list can be termed conspiracy; there is simply no other appellation that fits. However, the mistake and correction explanation does work quite well for hurricane Katrina and the tragedy of error in its aftermath.

 

                A good example of complicity rather than conspiracy in politics comes from the Clinton administration. Bill Clinton claimed during the campaign for his first term that he would impose economic sanctions on China for that country’s human rights abuses. After entering office, he was informed of the huge amount of trade conducted between the U.S. and China, which, at the time, happened to be one of the few places where the U.S. was not running a deficit on trade. Realizing that economic sanctions on China, stopping the flow of billions of dollars into the U.S., would be detrimental to the U.S. economy, the Clinton Administration chose instead to embark upon denouncement of Chinese human rights abuses while attempting to persuade the Chinese government to have greater care in that area. So, the Clinton administration, choosing to act upon the consensus view of what was best for the interests of the U.S., was complicit in allowing Chinese human rights abuses to go unchecked, even if protested.

 

                In law enforcement, as well as medicine and big business, things are often more hazy due to the intrinsic codes of silence and professional courtesy and a “don’t rock the boat” mentality. Power corrupts, we know. Granting power to those who belong to a fraternity of arms, to which many in law enforcement believe they do, is even more risky. Groupthink allows members of a group to minimize their individual and collective errors. While there are too many who actively pursue criminal activity while engaged in the business of law enforcement, medicine, or business, these reprehensible individuals still represent a tiny minority of those in their respective fields. Unfortunately, in efforts to protect the overall image and standing of their honorable selves and fellows, not enough is done internally to prevent and punish abuses. As in any human activity, there are cases of innocent practitioners being vilified unnecessarily while the guilty go free. But then too, there are situations, such as in northern Arkansas, where whole communities of “professionals” have evolved defensive and offensive strategies to protect entrenched criminal activity under the guise of law enforcement. While looking after one’s own self-interest through seeking to protect one’s group is merely complicity should that result in the concealment of misdeeds, actively seeking to promote a culture wherein such misdeeds may deliberately go unpunished is conspiracy.

 

                In all of this, I tread a middle ground wherein the benefit of the doubt may accrue over isolated or minor incidents. Frequent and outrageous abuses must usually be seen as conspiratorial in nature. The defining questions could, perhaps, be put in these following ways. If the question after the fact appears to be, “How do we clean this up?” then the course is simple complicity. But, if the apparent question, before the fact, is, “How do we get away with this?” then it seems obvious that conspiracy is the case. If a group, going into an endeavor- such as the War in Iraq- is demonstrated to have utilized deceit to gain acceptance, then the case for criminal conspiracy is made.

George Bush didn’t give you a Tax Cut

Many people will be voting Republican this year in misguided appreciation for the “tax cut” and rebate championed by George Bush and, belatedly, his heir apparent, John McCain. This would be a mistake for everyone. If one recalls, the surge in the cost of fuel, from which the entire country suffers, began in earnest shortly after the tax cut came into effect. The tax cut given under the Bush administration has effectively been nullified by the rise in fuel prices, both on the road and in the home. This development was created by the Bush administration’s pro-oil policies. Only a few thousand citizens of the U.S. and some foreign nationals connected with the oil industry have benefitted, while the rest of us have suffered.

In the end, Bush’s tax cuts have actually been a tax shift. Instead of paying out on one’s income, one pays out a greater amount in the federal tax on gasoline and heating oil. It works like this: although most people have received tax rebates and cuts to some rough hundreds of dollars per year, they are now paying that amount back as a reflection of the corresponding rise in the real cost and concurrent taxation of fuel. Although the federal fuel tax has not been raised by percentage, the price of fuel has risen in its share of individual expenses. As the price of fuel becomes an increasingly higher percentage of expense per unit, so too does the tax on that fuel. The tax on the fuel is not unreasonable in its per unit percentage, but the real cost per unit of fuel as a fraction of individual expense is. Therefore, with the increasing share of individual income consumed in the price of fuel, and its attendant tax, the Bush tax cuts have been effectively eliminated for the vast majority of Americans.

Do not think that a fuel efficient mode of transport helps. This increase in the real effect of the fuel tax impacts everything traded in America. John McCain has offered to make permanent the Bush tax cut, now evaporated into fossil fuel engines, but has made no clear effort to plan for easing American dependence on fossil fuels.

John McCain's Deceitful RNC Speech

Excerpts from the package of lies that was john McCain’s speech before the Republican National Convention and my corrections

“We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.”
In truth, Obama voted for a measure that included money for renewable energy, and sought to strip the measure of tax breaks for the oil companies after Bush vetoed the renewable energy funding in 2005.

“We believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.”
McCain’s tax reform plan provides substantial tax relief only for the wealthiest 5% of Americans- check my blog. Spending discipline is an interesting posit from the heir apparent to an administration that took a budget surplus and transformed it into the largest deficit ever- in only eight years. Open markets to the Republicans, and John McCain, mean unregulated markets, the chief cause of the collapsed housing market. Hard work and risk-takers rewarded applies to the upper economic echelons. The Republican-controlled Fed bailed out the criminal organizations, I mean lenders, in the housing market collapse, but left the hard working homeowners, who took a risk in trusting these deceptive lenders, to fend for themselves, losing the fruits of their labor in many instances. Furthermore, more Americans, real numbers and per capita, have slipped into poverty than at any time in our history; so much for rewarding hard work.

“We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench.”
The Republican-led government has drastically injured America’s defense by committing hundreds of thousands of troops to an unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq while largely ignoring the home turf of al-Qaida in Afghanistan. This has allowed al-Qaida leadership to go uncaptured and free to plan, re-build, re-organize, and recruit. It has also alienated once moderate Muslims who have come to correctly see the U.S. as interested more in its corporate profit motive than its own defense. Additionally, the war in Iraq has locked in troops that are necessary for response in the event of any true threat to the U.S. Allies and enemies alike have begun to see opportunity in the American inability to respond. As for personal responsibility, the Republicans, including John McCain, have consistently sought to empower the Executive branch to shield the President and his office from accountability from any rule of law, so that no one will be held personally responsible for the misdeeds of this, or any future, Republican administration. The rule of law extends to military operations and intelligence gathering, in which the predecessor to McCain’s aspiration has shown little regard, while McCain has rightly protested the use of torture. Unfortunately, John McCain has otherwise walked to Bush’s drumbeat. In speaking of legislating from the bench, McCain intends to criticize the rulings of Supreme Court and other justices who have ruled against the administration and republicans. These rulings have, in general, not been episodes of “legislating from the bench”; they have been, surprisingly, by and large, the result of proper reading and interpretation of the Constitution, as most jurists will attest. Strangely, when the judges ruled in favor of nine of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, in various matters, many relating to the detentions and trials in Guantanamo, these conservatives, including McCain, cried foul. Yet they had nothing but praise for the correct interpretation of the Second Amend Right of American citizens to own firearms.

“I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it.”
McCain’s tax plan, again, calls for insignificant tax breaks, less than 1%, for the majority of Americans, while giving greater relief, up to 30%, to those individuals and corporations in the top 5% of income brackets. Obama’s plan will raise taxes, but only for those making over $250,000/year. Those that will experience tax increases currently, through various Republican-sponsored devices, actually pay only what the lowest income bracket pays, 18%. Additionally, over two-thirds of American corporations effectively, through the intervention of incentives and breaks, pay no taxes. John McCain deliberately misrepresents Obama’s plan in order to perpetuate the American federal income dependence upon the shrinking middle class, for the benefit of less than 10% of Americans. By opening new markets, the Republicans mean new places for American jobs to be shipped out, while the corporations doing the outsourcing will benefit from a further reduction in their taxes. I don’t believe, McCain’s half-hearted attempts at reform to the contrary, that any Republican can legitimately make the claim to cut spending, except on social programs for Americans.

“Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas.”
Second highest business taxes in the world, McCain says. At 15%-30%, all factors included, American businesses pay lower taxes than most citizens, and are among the lowest in the world. I don’t know where the McCain campaign gets it figures, but it can’t be from the federal government or any accepted economists. Perhaps the source is the same one that the Bush administration uses to claim greenhouse gasses are not contributing to global warming.

The next several items in his speech point to jobs lost and jobs to be lost and then education. McCain has not presented anything more than talking points, let alone workable plans, on these issues. He says that he will fix these, but there is no indication of any plan to do more than talk about them.

“My fellow Americans, when I'm President, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.”
This comment is interesting in that McCain proposes to do essentially the same as the Democrats have been discussing for years, with one caveat: McCain puts the most dangerous and least progressive proposals at the head of his list. While an improvement on the standard Republican energy talk, it still leaves much room for the continuing influence of Big Oil.

“Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that.”
Actually, Obama has seen the necessity of increasing domestic oil production and called for it long before the Republicans. What he doesn’t see is the need for expanding exploration into fragile ecosystems already damaged by human development. Another point is the observance in most Western states of idle derricks. These pumps, wells and derricks are not dry; they are simply idle. So long as we have tapped resources not being utilized, there is no reason to seek new drilling. As for Nuclear power, the French and others have had great success, but why not instead invest in the future of both our needs and the needs of the environment?
Speaking of recent events on Russia’s border in Georgia, McCain said, “But we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people.” Unless, of course, that aggression and lawlessness is American.

That largely sums up the factual misrepresentations of John McCain’s speech before the Republican National Convention. The remainder resolves to story-telling and motivational rhetoric. John McCain is a national hero, but, so too, is John Kerry; not only did John Kerry fight for this country in Vietnam with distinction and honor- the Swift Boat Veterans were unapologetic liars, and proven to be so- but he stood up against his country’s misguided policies upon his return. That is courage and heroism. Still, John Kerry lost out to a man with zero credentials in service or foreign policy; let us pray that happens again.