Iran: Ramping up for War?

Recently BushandCo have upped funding for covert operations in and around Iran to $400m. For the sake of my children's children, I hope outright war with Iran doesn't happen.

Also, though Ron Paul takes a very clear stance on these sorts of foreign relations issues, neither McCain nor Obama have been as forthcoming, though I suspect McCain to be closer to the Bush philosophy. Personally, I prefer the Teddy Roosevelt approach to foreign relations... from the West African proverb, "speak softly, but carry a big stick". To me, this means that wars (conflicts, police actions, whatever you want to call them) should only be used when all other options have been exhausted. Starting another "preemptive war" flies in the face of this philosophy....and common sense!

Terrorism, the Executive Power Grab, and the Politics of Fear

While I think that terrorism, and terrorists are certainly a concern, I viewed the events of 9/11 as inevitable, both because of our policies of supporting oppressive regimes around the world, and because we'd (quite frankly) been quite lucky up to the tragic events of 9/11. While 9/11 demonstrates, perhaps, the pinnacle of what terrorists can do, I don't feel that it merited the life-changing reaction that the Bush administration advocated and has (largely) brought about. Declaring war on terror has only served to strengthen, not weaken the terrorists.

My belief is that the Bush Administration's real goal has been to increase (or "restore", in their words) power to the executive branch of government. 9/11 merely provided an ideal opportunity to use fear as a catalyst for their ambitions. Fear is a powerful ally, but it is generally short-lived, especially in democracies. Though the Bush Administration has inflicted as much damage as they could, their window of opportunity is closing. The politics of fear, I hope, is coming to an end.

Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I view the Bush Administration as the worst in the history of the United States. They have grown and centralized (federalized) big government, while attacking fundamental rights. I feel that my children will be paying for their mistakes throughout their lives.

I will vote for the candidate that I feel can start the process of undoing the damage that BushandCo have done.

2 candidates

We've already reached the point where the media is reporting on only two candidates. If reliable, independent news sources such as NPR automatically default to covering only the two party nominees, what hope does a third party candidate have to get any traction or coverage for their ideas?

What's more, it appears that the coverage is more and more about the campaigns themselves and how they are polling, how much money they are raising etc. What about covering the candidates actual positions, views, and beliefs?

It seems as though our media outlets (even NPR!!!) are turning election coverage into a reality TV show. We might as well go all the way and start texting in our votes. Probably more reliable than the damn Diebold machines anyway.

Newt weighs in on gas prices.

Though I don't agree with all he has to say, I'd certainly welcome releasing more of the petro reserves and the push (more and larger government subsidies) for alternate fuels.

21st. Century Battle: Autocracy vs. Democracy

More and more it appears that the world is prepared to accept, and even embrace, a free, market-based economy. Sure, not everyone is "playing fair", and there are likely to be (and have been) stumbling blocks on the way towards a completely global field of play, but we are well on our way towards this end.

The rise of China as an undeniable economic powerhouse is disturbing because it is a government bent on repression and control, except where profit is involved. My hope is that some successful Chinese entrepreneur will rise above the brainwashing their regime has imposed upon them and speak out against the basic rights their government denies them. My fear is that they will be paid handsomely not to do so, and the Chinese government will be allowed to continue repressing these rights, to the detriment of most...and benefit of the very few. This fear is made all that much stronger by my feeling that an autocratic government can make things easier for business. At a minimum, schedules become easier to predict and government-funded projects are less likely to be put on hold or delayed.

Democracies are great for people (as they should be), but more difficult for business. Schedules and government funding are more unpredictable and businesses are forced to adapt to constantly changing (and sometimes overly restrictive) regulations. Still, I think that the marriage of democracy and capitalism is what's best for the world, and it's future. For the benefit of all of us, let's hope that businesses (and China) feel the same!

I doubt that either Obama or McCain will seriously address this issue in their respective campaigns, which is a shame because I feel that it just might be the most important "battle" of the 21st. century. If the autocracy-capitalism combination wins out, our world (at the end of this century) will be pretty ugly...

[UPDATED 6/25/08]

Ok, so this isn't so much of a "new" battle, but rather the continuation of an old one. Still, it is no less important. Democracy(ies) must find a way to win... No 21st. century battle is more important!

I just received (and finished reading) my Father's Day gift from my father. It's a book called "The Return of History and the End of Dreams" by Robert Kagan. Not only is it an excellent read, but it strongly supports the view I present in this post.

Drilling in ANWR won't solve anything.

We need to insist that McCain do more than talk about opening up ANWR for drilling when fielding questions about energy policy.

We can't drill our way out of $4/gallon gasoline. Anyone with an elementary school level understanding of math and economics can figure this out.

The statistics don't lie:

Total world oil production: 82,532,000 barrels/day (2005)
U.S. petroleum consumption: 20,687,000 barrels/day (2007)
U.S. crude oil production: 5,102,000 barrels/day (2006)
U.S. petroleum exports: 1,317,000 barrels/day (2006)
See http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Projected peak ANWR oil output: 1,595,000 barrels/day (ten years after start of drilling)
See http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/service/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf

Let us assume that the oil coming out of ANWR will go directly towards our consumption and that it will somehow, miraculously, be free. This 1,595,000 barrels/day represents 7.7% of our needed oil, so if it were free it would reduce the cost of $4/gallon gas to $3.69/gallon. Ouch.

But the ANWR oil won't be free and it won't go directly towards our consumption (did you notice how the U.S. exports petroleum?). The ANWR oil will go directly into the world market, where it will increase the world oil supply by 1.93%. Care to take a guess as to what a 2% increase in oil supply will do to gas costs here at home?

Loss of a Good Man

While my meager voice won't add much to the chorus of sympathy and well wishes already expressed, here's to you, Tim:

May the sun shine gently on your face,
May the rain fall softly on your fields?
May the wind be at your back,
May the road rise to meet you,
May the Lord hold you in the hallow of his hand.
Until we meet again.

Tim Russert (May 7, 1950 - June 13, 2008) RIP.