Liberal and Loving It

The solution is Nuclear Power

Three of the big problems the world faces are:

• Global Warming
• Oil shortages
• High oil prices are funding terrorism

And these three problems are clearly interrelated. What's interesting is probably a majority of people in the U.S. agree that these problems, all three of them, are some of the most serious problems we face.

And the U.S. acting alone, can go a long way toward resolving all three. Imagine if the U.S. suddenly needed no oil for electrical generation or automobiles. What would we get?

• Our carbon emissions would drop below the Kyoto guidelines. If this did not stop global warming, it would at least drastically slow it.
• Gas prices would drop precipitously. With this giant reduction in demand, we could see oil drop back to $10 - $12 a barrel.
• If oil dropped that much in price it would totally dry up oil money going to terrorists. The oil countries would need every penny to spend on their citizens and would still face possible unrest from unhappy citizens.

So how do we reach this wonderful state? There is one answer to this - nuclear power. With sufficient nuclear power plants we can not only handle all electrical generation needs in the U.S. eliminating all the coal powered plants, but with more nuclear we could also generate power for electrical and/or hydrogen cars.

This is also the only answer that can provide power on the necessary scale today. Solar, wind, Geo-thermal, wave, etc can all provide some power, but not close to enough. Bio-mass could help some for vehicles but again, not for all of them and that still leaves electricity generation.

I don't understand why people are not demanding we go down this road. It's safer than coal & oil, both of which kill tens of thousands a year in this country from their emissions. And the Navy has shown that it can be made boringly safe.

I think one of the top priorities of this country should be finding 2 or 3 standard safe state of the art designs for nuclear power plants and put us on a crash program to build them out until we eliminate the need for oil in this country.

Of course, if someone has an argument about why nuclear power is worse than; global warming, climbing oil prices, or terrorist funding, I would love to hear it.

postscript: Patrick Moore - Greenpeace founder

Dawn Over Baghdad

I have been reading Dawn Over Baghdad - how the U.S. military is using bullets and ballots to remake Iraq. It is written by the editor in chief of The American Enterprise and as such I figure it comes as close to the official line for the Bush administration as anything.

The hardcover was published in 2004 and the softcover in 2005. And the preface to the softcover says that all of the optimism in the book is still dead on. Everything in the book as far as I can tell, is based on the facts he found on the ground - and his interpretation of them. So it's not out in la-la land.

But what is fascinating is the situation he paints, is far better than anyone could paint today. And the future progress he predicts is dead wrong. (And dead is the descriptive word for it.)

In short, the book provides a comprehensive documentation of just how wrong the Bush administration was in it's estimation of how they were going to win the peace. In places it makes the scope of the failure and it's horrible consequences so clear, it makes you want to cry.

So if you want a book that makes clear how wrong Bush has been, written by one of Bush's supporters - this is it.

Update:

Excellent synopsis of the author on DailyKOS. He now works for the White House.

trackbacks: Mudville Gazette, DailyKos

I support the troops, I do not support the war

I have seen numerous posts that it is impossible to support the troops, but not support the war.

And to that I say that unquestioned support of the military mission is not supporting the troops but instead treating them as a disposable tool.

First I want to make it clear that I supported the war in Iraq initially. My present opposition comes from the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration and the leadership of the military. Sending our troops to fight under these incompetents is sending them to die needlessly.

Second, I have incredible respect for the job our troops did in the initial run up to Baghdad. This part was one of the most amazing campaigns in the history of warfare. No other country could do this - ever. It was fast, it was effective, and it was accomplished with less collateral damage than probably any battle in a populated area in the last 200 years.

Third, I have a lot of respect for the job the troops on the ground are doing. In an impossible situation they are accomplishing miracles daily. And they are doing good things. Things would be a lot worse if not for the efforts of the troops on the ground.

The fight in Iraq is not an isolated war. It is (and was sold as) part of the Global War on Terror. So Iraq is not a self contained war we must win in order for our country to survive. Instead it is a single theater of operations or a campaign in the GWoT.

The GWoT must be won. But we should not fight every campaign. Doing that lets the enemy determine where we will apply resources. Fighting a pointless battle that merely kills our soldiers is akin to the battle of Fredericksburg. I postulate that you cannot both support the troops and support fighting these types of wasteful fights.

Our military and civilian leadership in Iraq is similar to that Gen. Burnside in the Civil War. Except that unlike Lincoln, Bush keeps the incompetents. Bush does not use the option of replacing the Burnside's with Sherman's. Bush is no Lincoln, he is no FDR. So in this case the only way to support the troops is to leave Iraq.

We also face the problem that things are not getting better in Iraq - they're getting worse. Yes you can find some statistic somewhere to show something is improving (there are lies, damn lies, and statistics). But by any realistic measure the trend has continued downward over our time there. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Fighting in Iraq is not working. Yes our troops have made tremendous sacrifices there; dead, wounded, PTSD, etc. And yes if we leave some of those loses will have been in vain. But continuing to have more loses won't change that.

Finally, there is only so much we can do for the Iraqis. Eventually they have to decide what government they are willing to fight for among themselves. This may mean a civil war, this may mean a democracy, this may mean a dictatorship. But as long as we have troops there, the Iraqis do not need to stand up and make their decision.

So yes, I respect and support our troops. And yes, I think we need to leave Iraq.

Please click here for part II of this post.

postscripts: SGT Mike Stokely, Thank You

trackbacks: Mudville Gazette, DailyKOS, California Conservative, FullosseousFlap, Sweetness & Light, bandit.three.six, The Thunder Run, Iraq The Model

I'm hopeful for the future

Iraq, Global Warming, George Bush, Oil Shortages, Health Care, the list goes on and on. We're facing disaster after disaster and most only promise to get worse - at least for the immediate future.

And I am hopeful that the before too long, things will be better and will continue to improve. Why do I say this?

1. As Winston Churchill said (paraphrasing) - the long term march of the human race is toward increased civilization. The human race will get through these problems (and discover some new ones).
2. There is a saying "God looks after fools and the United States of America." This is not the worst crisis the country has ever faced. The founding of the country, the Civil War, and the great depression were all cases where we faced the possibility of the country tearing itself apart. America will step up to these challenges and solve them.
3. The Democrats will take over one or both houses of Congress this year (my guess is both). This will force the Bush administration to work with the Democrats (congress controls the purse strings - for just this reason). And subpoena power will allow the Democrats to bring up all the mistakes and abuses of power so they can be discussed in the light of day.
4. G.W. Bush is out in another 2 years and the country will take who they elect very seriously this time. They will require it be someone who clearly is going to address these problems.

Another way to put it is the world and this country is resilient. The Bush administration can do a lot of short-term damage. But they do not have the power to stop humanities quest to create a better world. And they can run the U.S. for awhile, but they cannot change the basic character of this country. (Although it is amazing the level of short damage they have been able to inflict on this country and the rest of the world.)

So keep fighting - because we all need to strive to turn things around and start making them better. But take heart that long term we will end. Because long term civilization advances.

Democratic Party - how to win in 2008

Ok, 2006 is looking good and it's possible that by 2008 Iraq will be such a disaster that no republican can win. But that's what we thought in 2004 and we still blew it. And by we I mean the leaders of the part and the primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.

Problem 1: When the democratic party thinks the general election is won, they will nominate the candidate that they think should be president, not the one they think has the best chance of winning. The only thing Kerry had going for him was that amoung the liberal elite in Washington and to a lesser extent elsewhere, he was viewed as the best president. (And I think even that judgment was way off.) But he was not the best candidate.

Problem 2: Why does New Hampshire get such a big say in who is nominated. New England is basically a gimme for the democrats. This would be like Mississippi deciding who the republican nominee is. It's a great deal for New Hampshire but a lousy one for the democratic party and the country. (At least Iowa is a state where the race tends to be close.)

The first 5 primaries should be set as follows. Take the 5 states with the closest votes in the last presidential election by percentage. Then schedule them out with one primary a week from the lowest to highest population state. This starts of the nomination in the states where the election will be decided - giving us a candidate best positioned to win. And by taking those 5 in population size, the process still starts with a state where candidates can sell themselves at the retail level.

This would set the primaries for 2008 as:

1. New Mexico
2. Nevada
3. Iowa
4. Wisconsin
5. Ohio

Problem 3: This country tends to only elect candidates who were governors or managed very large federal organizations (see below). I think Gore would have easily won if he had been governor of Tennessee prior to becoming Vice President. Part of this is people view this as good experience for the job. And equally big part is people with executive responsibility talk different from legislators. Legislators talk about bills they passed. Executives talk about things they have accomplished. To be elected president you need to talk like one.

So what does the party need to do? Here is my take on it now:

1. Concentrate on the 2006 election. Gaining control of at least one side of congress is crucial, for the sake of the world and the country even more so than for the sake of the democratic party. This is the only job for right now.
2. Revisit the primary schedule. Tell New Hampshire the country and the party is more important than their ego and they lose their special position. Iowa should be ok with the change as they will make it to the top 5 somewhat regularly.
3. Make the primary open. Do not anoint Hillary. She's a strong candidate and she could follow JFK. But history is not in her favor - she has never held an executive position. And that could be a major factor in the election.

Presidents of the 20^th Century

• McKinley - governor
• Roosevelt - governor
• Taft - governor
• Wilson - governor
• Harding - senator (one of the worst presidents)
• Coolidge - governor
• Hoover - head American Food Administration, Supreme Economic Council, American Relief Administration, etc.
• Roosevelt - governor
• Truman - V.P. when FDR died
• Eisenhower - Supreme commander allied forces in Europe
• Kennedy - senator
• Johnson - V.P. when JFK was shot.
• Nixon - governor correction: Congress, V.P., lost race for governor
• Ford - appointed
• Carter - governor
• Reagan - governor
• Bush I - ambassador, director of the CIA
• Clinton - governor
• Bush II - governor

Put aside a sitting vice president who becomes president when the president dies (OMG - President Cheney!) and aside from Harding (who was an anomaly) and JFK, it takes executive experience to win. And yes Gore would have won a fair vote in Florida - but with executive experience he would have won with enough votes that the republican cheating would not have mattered.

And by the same token, JFK arguably won only because of vote fraud for the democrats in Chicago and Texas giving him Illinois and Texas.

For this reason I am very worried about Hillary being the democratic candidate. If she can win a highly competitive primary in competitive states, then fine. But lets test it first with a valid primary.

What do you think? Please comment.

trackbacks: DailyKos, Mudville Gazette

I'm now a believer in Dean

I am a somewhat moderate democrat (some on the far left say I don't belong in the democratic party) and if I got to pick the president (not the democratic candidate but the president) I think my choice would be Al Gore.

But after the disaster of 2004 where Kerry snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, I strongly supported Howard Dean as chairman of the democratic party. Not because I believed he had the answer, but because the bozos running the party clearly did not and so it was time for a radical change.

When Dean came up with his 50 state strategy, I thought his arguments were reasonable and figured why not give it a try. And the fact that the old powers in charge of the party were against it was another vote in it's favor.

Dean's argument at first was that this will take years and we need to start building now for that future be it 2008 or even 2012. But... The disaster that is the Bush administration has become so clear, or there was already quite a bit of pent up demand - that the strategy is starting to pay off now. Every day more and more house districts are becoming competitive. And it states that I never would have predicted.

Equally important, Dean has pushed the money out to the states and the candidates. Instead of directing what to do from the national headquarters, the states are making the decisions at each state.

This has always made so much more sense. In the past the democratic party has searched for a single approach that would work everywhere. The problem was, when that great approach turned out to suck - it caused losses everywhere. Instead now we have decisions being made locally adapted to what works in each location.

And some of those approaches made locally will be worse than what the national headquarters would have shoved down their throat. But many will be better. And most importantly, a bad approach affects a single house race or at worst, a single state.

Equally important, people want to win races. So they will watch what goes on in the other 49 states and the other 100+ competitive house races and the good ideas will move to the top. And the one thing you can be sure of, the best ideas are ones that never would have come out of a national headquarters.

Finally, the blogosphere has been embraced by Dean. And done so intelligently. It's not that a couple of bloggers have been set as the ones to go to or listen to, although audience share does count (and it should). Instead there has been encouragement of a vibrant interactive community where all talk and contribute.

This again is a big plus for the party. Even if no one ever reads this blog (although they should <g>), I feel more a part of what the party is doing by writing it. And that holds true for person after person.

It also moves the discussion from taking place just amoung those at the top of the party to a discussion that involved to a greater or lesser degree everyone who wants to talk. That may make it more work for those at the top - but it creates a much more responsive party.

I am very hopeful for 2006 and 2008. And I think a lot of the reason to hope is what Howard Dean has done, especially his decentralization of the party. One or two states might screw up but most of them will lead us to more seats in state after state after state. In a sense Dean has harnessed the Wisdom of Crowds.

What do you think? Please comment.

trackbacks: DailyKos, Mudville Gazette

Joe Lieberman is today's Adlai Stevenson

I've been trying to figure out why the liberal elite of the democratic party is so upset about Joe Lieberman's loss. I don't think it's the difference in his and Lamont's views on the war - Lamont is no different from Murtha and yet Murtha is hailed by the same people as a brave man.

I think what it is is Joe Lieberman is today's Adlai Stevenson. Adlai Stevenson was nominated to run against Eisenhower both times because the leaders of the democratic party (not the party bosses but the ones who "knew best" mostly located in Washington) knew he was the best person to be president. Note that the argument was not that he was the most likely to win - but that he would do the best job as president.

That is Joe Lieberman today. All of the top democratic operatives in Washington, the people who used to set the agenda for the party day by day, most of them view Joe Lieberman as one of the few who would make a very good president.

So what happen when "the people" vote against one of their anointed few? What is the human reaction of anyone in this case? You get pissed. Because voting out Lieberman is a direct affront to their anointing him as one of the few, it is a direct insult to their role as the ones who anoint the leaders.

But an article titled "how dare you not vote for my favorite senator" won't sell, instead there are all kinds of lame reasons why voting for Lamont was bad. But the arguments don't add up:

• Voting for a candidate who wants us to leave Iraq over one who wants to stay the course is the end of the democratic party. Give me a break! First off, the democratic party has always had a range of opinions from it's congresspeople on Iraq and every other war. A change in one senator is not a seismic shift.
• And stay the course is a failure so a vote for Lamont is a vote for trying something different. One definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result. By this argument voting for anyone but Lieberman makes sense.
• The republicans are celebrating over Lieberman's defeat. Right. If Lieberman (called Loserman by the right wing in 2000) had won they would be celebrating that. It's called spin. And any democrat that lets the republicans set the spin of each event and then frame the debate - that democrat is setting the republicans up to win.
• I think Lamont winning actually scares them. This provides national press for a candidate who is fresh, articulate, and his whole story is that Iraq is a disaster. Stories about Lamont are stories about the mess the republicans have made in Iraq.

The whining from the punditocracy, conservative as well as liberal, is akin to the state constitutional amendments against gay marriage. Both groups can see the writing on the wall - they are going to lose eventually. But they are going to go down kicking and screaming fighting a rear-guard action as long as possible.

But keep in mind one provable truth - whatever the pundits say, it's almost certainly wrong.

And who do I think will win in November - Lamont. And it will drive the pundits crazy once again.

What do you think? Please comment.

trackbacks: DailyKos, Mudville Gazette, Thespis Journal

Iraq - I was wrong

I have seen a lot of people who initially supported the war in Iraq bend themselves into amazing contortions trying to square that with what has happened. I'm going to take a different approach. I was wrong. Nothing more, just wrong.

By way of explanation, not excuse, here are the details behind it:

• I believed, based on the various arguments floating around, that there were WMDs in Iraq. I didn't take what Bush said as gospel but the majority of those who should have had good intelligence on this, including the French, believe they existed. To me the big question was how far along were they. Turns out - nothing going on.
• I do think the initial fight to Baghdad was handled brilliantly. One of the better uses of military might in history (although not as good as Patton's race across France considering what each commander had to work with).
• But handling the "peace" (if you can call it that). This has to be one most incompetent military actions in the history of the human race. This is even worse than Vietnam because it was possible to win in Iraq while in Vietnam the best that could happen was to not lose.
• The Middle East has a history of only changing when a large outside force jars it in to action. I was hopeful that this would be a catalyst for a positive change.

I could argue that I figured Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield would never be this incompetent. I could argue that believing WMDs existed was a reasonable viewpoint. But all of that is irrelevant. We all make assumptions and educated guesses when reaching decisions on everything from what to order at lunch to what school to send our kids to.

And the bottom line is - I was wrong.

I also think this will go down in history as the most incompetently prosecuted war in the history of the U.S. With blame laid not just on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield but also on most of the top brass at the pentagon. A lot of the troops in Iraq are doing an amazing job considering their resources and rules of engagement. But their top commanders almost without exception have not done their job well.

In the Civil War Lincoln fired general after general (McClellan twice) until he found the ones who would fight. In WWII King immediately replaced Stark and Nimitz was bounced up to head the Pacific fleet. In the army Eisenhower was a Colonel when Marshall promoted him up over every general in the army to command in North Africa and then Europe. And none of these men were shy about removing those that were not good enough. Even Fletcher, the "hero of Midway" was reassigned to do nothing when it was clear that he was not good enough.

How many top brass have been removed in the Iraq war? Zero.

What do you think? Please comment.

trackbacks: DailyKos, Mudville Gazette