Global Warming and the Ten Year Window

Recent consensus in the scientific community about global warming is that the world has about a 10 year window of opportunity to prevent a catastrophe. But doing something effective is going to take political will, political leadership, and money--lots of it. What it comes down to is that all the rich countries of the world are going to have to raise taxes to get enough money to get the job done. The carbon-based economy of the world has to be replaced by renewable energy and safe nuclear (based on pebble technology) power plants.

But the next presidential election is going to see the Republican candidate pledging “No new taxes”, and the Democratic candidate chiming right in. (What--raise taxes and save the world but lose the election? No way!) Maybe this could be prevented by demanding that all candidates--Republicans, Democrats, and others--sign a pledge that they will not rule out new taxes that are designed to fight global warming.

It should be possible to get a few candidates to make such a pledge, just to get the ball rolling. If nothing else, get some total outsider to make such a pledge. Those that pledge can then accuse those who won’t make such a pledge as hypocrites at best, not to mention cowardly and incompetent to be a national leader.

Bad Sound Tracks

If you watch movies and dramatic episodes on tv you may have noticed the incredible sound tracks that most modern shows have. Just when an important dramatic moment is about to occur, the background music swells enough to drown out the actors voices. The “Law And Order” shows are especially good at doing this. Restaurant and street scenes are especially good for making the background noises (trucks, cars, sirens, background voices, telephones, etc.) so loud (for reality?) that, again, the actors voices are pretty much drowned out. The Jay Leno Show is also guilty of this kind of thing. Jay will tell a joke and then the laughter comes on so loud that the mute button is needed. A good portion of the Jay Leno Show, (especially during the opening monolog) has to be muted because of this uneven sound.

It's almost as if the producer turns the show over to the sound guy and tells him, "Okay, go ahead and ruin it".

The November election

The Democrats are being criticized for not having a plan to get the US out of Iraq, or else for planning to abandon Iraq to anarchy. The Republicans say this is the reason voters should elect Republicans this November.

These are phony issues. The only issue the Democrats need to emphasize concerning the election is the almost total incompetence of the Bush administration.

What happens when a major corporation starts doing poorly, losing market share, going into debt, allowing share prices to fall disastrously? The CEO is replaced as soon as possible. And along with him, as much as possible, all the people associated with him.

If it had been trying to run a corporation instead of trying to run a country, the entire Bush administration would have been replaced some time ago When you consider all the errors that have been made--the failure to capture bin Laden, the failure to clean up Afghanistan, the insane rush to invade Iraq, the failure to send enough troops to do the job in Iraq, the failure to get the job done quickly, the failure to control the national debt, the failure to raise the minimum wage while cutting taxes for the rich, and more--there is no need for the Democrats to propose alternatives. Get rid of the incompetents as much as possible and as soon as possible. Get a new team at the wheel of the ship of state. Getting rid of Bush may not be practical or a good idea with Cheney on tap, but much of the rest of the administration can be kicked out.

How long do the people of the US have to put up with the gross mismanagement we have been subjected to for the past five or six years? Can the US actually tolerate this level of incompetence for another two years?

THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES

The democrats have added Nevada and South Carolina to their presidential primary states. That will give three presidential primaries in January, 2008 and another in early February, and these four primaries are likely to determine the Democratic presidential nominee.

But January is too early in the political process to select a candidate. Back in the days of smoke-filled rooms and political bosses, candidates were not chosen, or at least confirmed, until the conventions. The Democrats would be better off to set May first or even June first as the earliest allowable primary. By that time the serious candidates would probably all be known and have their positions at least sketched out.

But a four-state primary schedule is better than a two-state schedule. It’s major advantage is that it will bring more people into the primary process, especially Hispanics in Nevada and blacks in South Carolina. One result of the four-state schedule is likely to be a major reworking of the election process. With the results of four primaries available, the country will have a better feel for the appeal of each candidate to a somewhat larger and more representative Democratic base. If all four states choose a different candidate, this will likely decrease the importance of the primaries and move the real electioneering to later in the political process. This should be good for the Democrats. If the Republicans follow suit, it will be good for them too, and for the country as a whole.

A Primary Election for 2008

In a July 21, 2006 op-ed piece in Newsday, Joshua Spivak, an attorney and media consultant, made the point that the presidential primary elections are rigged against the Democrats. Iowa and New Hampshire, the two established early primaries, are to be joined by Nevada and South Carolina. These are all small states, and the voters of small states tend to favor Republicans more than Democrats.

But the big states, such as New York and California, tend to be Democratic states. By dealing the big states out of the primary process, the great bulk of Democratic voters are being ignored. In other words, the Democratic candidate the small states are likely to select is probably not the same candidate that the Large states would select. The reasoning behind picking small states is that it would be too difficult to hold a primary in a large state; the candidates would not have enough money to finance a primary race in a large state.

But the Internet might provide a better way to select a
Democratic candidate. Let MoveOn, for example, run a nationwide Democratic primary. If such a project is to be fair and effective, it will be necessary to make sure that only Democrats vote in the Democratic primary. One way to do tis would be to have every voter submit a notarized affidavit that he or she voted for John Kerry in the 2004 election or that he/she intends to vote for the Democratic candidate in the 2008 election.

Computers can be used to track the voters and make sure people don’t vote twice. Volunteers could probably handle the data entry problem once the system has been set up.

Did you know that Ken Rove said, in 2004, before the election: “The good news is that Dean is not the nominee.” Quoted by Bob Woodward in his book, “Plan of Attack”.

How to Shake up a bureaucracy

Every time you go to a bureaucracy with something a little different from what they expect, you are almost guaranteed to get a brush off--fast or slow.

In my small town a new traffic signal was installed on a well used but not major road. The traffic signal was at the entrance to a gated community and the signal light for all traffic on the road was set to Red. Thus all cars and trucks and buses using the road had to come to a stop regardless of traffic in or out of the gated community. After a short wait, the light would turn green. As you might expect, frequent users of the road were very annoyed by this arrangement.

A letter was sent to the traffic department suggesting that the light should be set to green until a car wanted to exit from the gated community. A reply came back to the effect that the light was designed to slow traffic on the road, since a few cars were going too fast. Nothing was to be changed.
Who could expect anything else?

So, cars coming out of the gated community were counted and cars being stopped by the red light were counted. It turned out that about ten vehicles were being stopped for every car coming out of the gated community. A new letter was sent to the traffic department pointing out the ratio of traffic and also the fact that close to one million cars per year were being unnecessarily stopped.

This letter apparently had some effect because a letter came back to the effect that instead of stopping cars on the road, only cars traveling at more than 30 mph would be stopped. After about a month or so, the signals were changed such that cars traveling at less than 30 mph did not have stop routinely.

Thus, one way to shake up a bureaucracy is to hit them with some facts and data. Unfortunately, this is not always possible.

Are Dems really soft on Security?

The Republicans like to say that Democrats are weak on defense and that they want to “cut and run” from Iraq. Actually, the US has the manpower, the technology, the money and everything else needed to end the mess in Iraq in six months or less. But the Republican administration is so weak on defense that they are afraid to commit the resources necessary to get the job done. Iraq should have been over a long time ago. Why won’t the Republican administration do what has to be done?

As other examples of the Dems being weak on defense, take a look at what happened in the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, asked for and got a declaration of war from Congress during World War I, although the US was not under direct attack. Then, in the 1930s, when Hitler was rampaging in Europe and England was desperate because Nazi subs almost starved her out, FDR, a Democrat, no less, initiated lend-lease, which brought the US merchant and warships into direct military action against Germany. When Japan attacked the US, there was no hesitancy about declaring war.

Then came Korea. When North Korea attacked our ally, South Korea, Harry Truman, another wimpy Democrat, sent troops into action at once and then sought United Nations approval. Also, it was Truman who initiated the US resistance to Communist expansion, which become the Cold War.

Next was the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy, a Democrat, mobilized the US Navy and forced the Russians to back off.

Following that, we got mired down in Viet Nam, undertaken to prevent the possible spread of Communism. Again, Democrats Kennedy and Johnson were the ones acting to protect the US.


So, what am I missing? Where are all the cutting and running Democrats?

More on Campaign Finance reform

In a previous post it was suggested that contributors to campaigns have 60% of their contribution go to the candidate of their choice and that 40% go to their opponent. This will work ok if there is only one opponent. But how does the 40% get distributed if there are 2 or more candidates? Let's say there are two certified opponents at the time the contribution is made. The first choice still gets 60%. The certified opponent who entered the race the earliest would get 60% of the 40% and the other certified opponent would get 40% of the 40%. If both entered on the same date, each would get 50% of the 40%.

If there are three certified opponents at the time of the contribution, the first choice would still get 60%. If all three entered the race on the same day, each would get one-third of the 40%. This would apply also if there were even more than three opponents. If all entered on different dates, only the two earliest opponents would get any of the contribution.

If an opponent or the first choice should withdraw from the contest after receiving contributor money, any money not spent could be turned over to the election commission to distribute in accordance with the above principles.

No system of campaign finance is likely to be totally fair to all. The above system would be a step in the right direction.

Campaign Finance Reform?

Financing political campaigns is still a problem, even after the passage of the McCain-Finegold reform act. But there is a relatively simple way that campaign finance can be made much fairer.
First, let people and organizations contribute as much as they want to the campaign. Second, if the amount is $100 or less, they can contribute the full amount to any candidate they want. But if the amount is more than $100, the donor must specify one candidate to get 60% of the money and one of the other candidates, if more than one, to get 40%. This arrangement will ensure that each major candidate will probably have enough money to compete effectively, while still allowing people to back their favorite.
Another effect would be the elimination of most uncontested or sham races. With a substantial amount of money available for campaigning, you will always be able to find a suitable opposition candidate.

Prevent any Bush war on Iran

Congress must make sure that G.W. Bush does not make or declare war on Iran. If war on Iran becomes necessary, which is extremely unlikely, it should occur only after the next presidential election.

Atomic weapons have been used in only one conflict, WWII. Since then, they have been primarily a waste of money by all weapon developers. The weapons cannot be used because any use would bring massive retaliation by one or more countries. Usage would be suicidal. The world has had two examples of what atomic weapons can do. The world doesn’t want or need any more examples.

In the recent proposed nuclear agreement between the US and India, India promises “No first use” of nuclear weapons. If all, or a substantial majority, of the nuclear powers were to agree to such a pledge, and to back it up by agreeing to attack any first user, the whole strategic balance would probably change. All atomic weapons would be good only as threats, if that.