Category Archives: Commentary

Obama Kicks Keystone XL Down the Road

Posted on by

A posting on this site was titled “Economic Recovery Versus Red Tape” discussed two pipeline projects. The Ruby natural gas pipeline provided thousands of jobs to construction workers and hundreds of jobs to environmental specialists. It also boosted property taxes in the areas where it was constructed. You would think such a project would have wide support, but the environmental hoops it had to jump through before successful completion, which cost millions of dollars, were tiny. The second pipeline described in the posting was the Keystone XL, which is proposed to bring oil from Canada to be processed in U.S. refineries. I’ve seen estimates that the project would add “shovel ready” jobs ranging from 4,500 (from environmentalists opposing the project) to as many as 20,000.

President Obama has taken the decision to approve the project out of the State Department and announced that he will make the decision after the 2012 election. This comes after three years of intensive study that decided the project had an acceptable environmental impact. (Hmmm, is there any significance to making a final decision after the 2012 elections?) I expect the announcement might have something to do with the fact that environmentalists opposed to the pipeline recently surrounded the White House and the Sierra Club declared that Mr. Obama could not count on the environmental vote if he allowed the project to be approved.

One objection to the project is that the oil from Canadian tar sands has more of an impact on “global warming” emissions than oil from other sources. I’ve seen estimates as low as a 5% increase in “greenhouse gases” to as high as three times by those who don’t like the project. An article in the Washington Post by Steven Mufson points out that any argument on how much more greenhouse gas is produced is meaningless, since the oil will probably be exported to China and consumed if there isn’t a closer market. Mr. Mufson also says several alternatives are being considered, to include a proposal to build a new refinery in Alberta to process the oil. That alternative would of course prevent creation of U.S. jobs to build a pipeline and to process the oil.

Environmentalists of course are demanding that alternate pipeline routes be considered to avoid the Ogallala aquifer (which is at a significant depth under the proposed pipeline). Matthew Brown of the Associated Press points out that there have been thirteen routes rejected. Environmentalists will find a reason, or many reasons, to reject any route. They don’t want a pipeline to be built, and will find compelling reasons to oppose any route.

The New York Times predictably applauded Mr. Obama’s decision to kick the can down the road. They point out that labor unions had supported the project while environmentalists oppose it. Call me a cynic, but I’m guessing that preventing the project until after the election will allow environmentalists to eagerly support Mr. Obama’s reelection, and that he already has done enough to earn the votes of labor union members.

It is interesting that there is already “Plan B” to transport the Canadian oil to U.S. refineries by expanding current pipelines with additional pumping stations. The delay to making a final decision on Keystone XL until after the 2012 elections will probably provide Mr. Obama cover for maintaining votes, but it won’t have any measurable impact on the eventual pathway for the oil except for preventing addition of “shovel ready jobs.”

Is Carbon Dioxide Dangerous?

Posted on by

Too much carbon dioxide can indeed be dangerous, and people have died when they are trapped in an area where carbon dioxide fire suppression systems displace the air with the oxygen needed for life. However, there have been events resulting in the declaration that carbon dioxide is dangerous even in trace quantities. The Supreme Court in 2007 declared that carbon dioxide and other “heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.”  That ruling set the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in motion to establish regulations to control the gases.  A New York Times article quoted the EPA as saying the science supporting the…endangerment finding “compelling and overwhelming.”  They proposed a law under the Clean Air Act to regulate “heat-trapping gases” (which includes methane, nitrous oxide, and hydroflurocarbons in addition to carbon dioxide). (I first mentioned this in a posting dated June 8.)

Several aspects about the discourse on carbon dioxide and its influence or lack of influence on global warming trouble me. What troubles me most is that I don’t see that there has been an honest presentation of the facts. To give one example, the proposed regulations and the list of “heat-trapping gases” does not include the gas that has the largest effect. Water vapor exerts a much stronger greenhouse gas effect compared to carbon dioxide or any of the other gases that are to be regulated.  None of the gases have much of an influence compared to the sun. It seems too obvious to mention that the sun should always be given first consideration when global temperatures are mentioned.  Warming oceans from increased solar activity results in higher concentrations of both water vapor and carbon dioxide.  The water vapor is obviously created from evaporation and the carbon dioxide results from lower solubility in warmer water.  The question that begs to be asked is why do we focus on regulating carbon dioxide and not worry about water vapor, if water vapor has a much greater greenhouse gas effect?  I will propose an answer, which I predict won’t be well received in the camp that wants us to believe man-made global warming is a risk to life as we know it. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of power production, which gives us industry, jobs, wealth, and a comfortable life style.  The environmental movement has become a powerful political force, and, to state the issue simplistically, many in that movement believe we should be ashamed of all of the benefits we derive from having plentiful generation of energy.  It would be difficult to vilify water vapor, because it has nothing to do with how we generate power.  Therefore, it is ignored.

Something else that is being ignored are all of the positive effects that result from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide.  Revisiting memories of junior high and high school science classes reminds me that we and all other mammals exhale carbon dioxide, which makes it seem incredible that the EPA has decided it “endangers public health and welfare.” Also, carbon dioxide is the fertilizer that allows plants to grow.  Plants combine carbon dioxide with water with the energy from sunlight to produce organic chemicals.  They release oxygen as a result of the process, and we find good uses for oxygen (like being able to keep on living). One would think that increases in plant growth that accompany higher levels of carbon dioxide would be considered a positive by even the most ardent critics of the gas. I suggest readers review Dr. Arthur Robinson’s paper titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide.” That article provides details of the increases in plant growth.  I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb to say that better food crop yields resulting from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide is something we should celebrate.  I will warn readers that Dr. Robinson is not well-liked by the advocates of man-made global warming.  He circulated a petition that questions the validity of that theory, and it was signed by over 31,000 people with scientific degrees.  Kind of puts a new light on the term “consensus,” doesn’t it? I signed the petition, and have yet to be rewarded by the oil industry, which is one of the accusations directed at Dr. Robinson and his petition.

Nuclear Power in Japan

Posted on by

I posted a blog in May titled “Japanese Nuclear Reactor Disaster,” and closed with  comments that we should learn from the disaster to improve safety and not cripple our economic prosperity in decades to come by being the only country that decides not to use nuclear energy. I believe those observations have been reinforced by some recent developments in Japan. That country would seem to have the most incentive to avoid anything nuclear. Their country is the only one that has ever had nuclear weapons unleashed against it at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now a tsunami has crippled and damaged nuclear power plants leaving wide areas considered to be unsafe (at least for now).

The most recent article I’ve read about the future of nuclear energy in Japan is by David Guttenfelder of the Associated Press, and it says the cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactors will take decades. The article mentions that people who had lived near the reactors may never be able to go home, and then interestingly mentions Hiroshima and Nagasaki where nuclear weapons were detonated and are once again thriving cities. The disaster is accurately described as resulting from a tsunami that swamped not only the plant along with large areas of Japan. “Mangled trucks, flipped over by the power of the wave, still clutter its access roads.” The nuclear part of the disaster is that the damaged reactors “…will have to be entombed in a sarcophagus, with metal plates inserted underneath to keep it watertight.”

Another Associated Press article by Yuri Kageyama titled “Six months after disaster, Japan sticking by nuclear power,” gives a different perspective.  A retired mechanic is quoted as saying he would prefer “…life without the nearby nuclear power plant.” However, he then says, “It is also true we all need it.” It is a fact that Japan, just like any developed nation, needs energy.  A recent poll found 55 percent of Japanese want to reduce the number of reactors, but one person interviewed asked, “What is the alternative?” Alternative energy is expensive, and nuclear technology has become a source of pride for the nation. There is no argument that nuclear power has helped fuel the country’s prosperity for decades, and the recent tsunami-related disaster hasn’t completely overcome that legacy. Only three percent of Japanese said they wanted to eliminate nuclear power reactors completely.

Chester Dawson in the Wall Street Journal presents an interesting reason why Japan must remain “nuclear.” The sub headline to the article is “Some say Bombs’ Potential as Deterrent argues for Keeping Power Plants Online.”  The article leads with, “Many of Japan’s political and intellectual leaders remain committed to nuclear power even as Japanese public opinion has turned sharply against it…Japan needs to maintain its technical ability to make nuclear weapons…it’s important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time.” Japan has both the ability to produce nuclear weapons-grade material and also apparently also has the knowledge to build a nuclear warhead. It also has  the missile technology to deliver a nuclear warhead. The Hayabusa test satellite, which successfully landed on an asteroid and then returned to earth, demonstrated the ability to guide ballistic missiles.

The current policy of Japan prevents production of nuclear weapons. Minister of Defense Yasuo Ichikawa was quoted as saying “We have absolutely no plans to change the existing policy based on the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, a 1967 policy banning the production, possession and presence of nuclear weapons in Japan”

There is official support for keeping nuclear power capacity. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has endorsed keeping nuclear power at least until alternative sources can be developed. That position “…stems from concern about electricity shortages, which could lead to blackouts and stifle economic growth.”   Japan’s largest daily circulation newspaper editorialized that the government should “…stay the course on nuclear power…stressing that the country’s stockpile of plutonium functions diplomatically as a potential nuclear deterrent.”

North Korea wasn’t mentioned in any of the articles, but I’m certain those who mention Japan’s need to keep a nuclear deterrent are thinking of that country.

Joe McCarthy

Posted on by

Joe is probably the most vilified politician in U.S. history, although a good argument could be made for Richard Nixon to hold that distinction. Negative reports have even been written Joe’s military service despite the fact he resigned from being a judge to enlist in the Marines in World War II. He would later campaign for office as “Tail gunner Joe,” and would limp around complaining of the shrapnel in his leg. His detractors say that he never flew in a combat mission, and that the stiff leg was from an accident during a shipboard ceremony while traveling to the South Pacific. He was elected to the Senate in 1946 and spent several unremarkable years there. He was said to be a popular D.C. party guest, but unpopular with other senators because of his quick temper and the ease with which he became voraciously critical.

Joe became the center of public attention after he gave a speech to a Wheeling West Virginia women’s club in 1950 where he said he held in his hand a list of communists in the U.S. State Department. That speech eventually attracted attention across the country, and politicians who would be embarrassed by what he said began to vilify McCarthy.

I’ve read several books about Joe, and most of them describe him as a despicable, drunken bully. “Blackmailed by History, the Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy” by M. Stanton Evans, which I reviewed in three parts on this web site, presents the other side of the story, and it is the book I will use for most of the references in this posting.

Probably the strangest accusation against Joe is that he had something to do with the Hollywood Blacklist. It is true that many Hollywood personalities suffered as the result of investigations following the “Red Scare.”The House Un-American Activities (HUAC) chaired by Democrat Martin Dies beginning in 1938 was looking for Nazi and Communist influences in government. Richard Nixon was on the committee in the later 1940s when several Hollywood personalities were “blacklisted.” Many references to “McCarthyism” will mention the McCarthy and the HUAC-imposed blacklists in the same passage, even though Senator McCarthy had nothing to do with actions of that House committee. As what I consider a fascinating aside, Congressman Samuel Dickstein had vied with Dies to be the chairman of HUAC, but was relegated to be the vice-chairman. Dickstein is the only U.S. Congressman proven by Venona and NKVD archives to be a paid Soviet agent. The Soviets apparently had little if any respect for Dickstein, since they gave him the code name “Crook.”

A charge in the eventual indictments of McCarthy was that he lied about the number of people on the list he was holding when he gave the Wheeling speech. McCarthy would say he mentioned 57 as the number, but his detractors claimed he said 205. Eva Ingersoll, a political activist from Wheeling would testify in front of Congress that Joe had said there were 205 people being investigated and 57 were “card-carrying Communists.” An editorial in the Wheeling Intelligencer the day after the speech mentions “over fifty” suspects of Communist affiliation. The headline of a Denver Post article reads, “57 Reds Help Shaping U.S. Policy:  McCarthy.” Historical references about Joe continue to contend that he lied about the numbers regardless of the information confirming McCarthy’s statements. (There is no recording or written documentation of the speech.) I find it fascinating that the number Joe McCarthy had used in a speech is what the focus of investigation became. That was apparently more important than the accusation there were several people suspected of being communists shaping U.S. foreign policy. The Venona Project was declassified in the mid-1990s and would confirm there were hundreds of communist sympathizers and spies in the U.S. government and military.

The movie Goodbye and Good Luck is about the Edward R. Murrow news reports that damaged McCarty’s image. One scene was a young woman suspected of being a communist who is being interrogated by McCarthy in a hearing. She mentions that there are three people including her who have a similar name in the phone book, and the media jumped on the story saying that McCarthy had accused the wrong person. History has shown that the woman, whose job was to decode classified messages, was a communist. The most famous episode shown by the movie was lawyer Joseph Welch asking McCarthy “Have you no sense of decency” after McCarthy mentioned a young lawyer who had been on Welch’s staff and had belonged to a “far left” organization. Welch himself had revealed the affiliation to the New York Times six weeks before the hearings, and perhaps that is how McCarthy learned of it. However the theatrical rants by Welch accusing McCarthy of having no shame in “ruining a young-man’s life” in front of the cameras with tears rolling down his face is what the movie shows and what most people remember when McCarthy is mentioned.

I’ve done a two part review of the book “No Sense of Decency by Robert that presents the negative side of Joe McCarthy and the book is both well-documented and presented. Reading that book and the Evan’s book “Blackmailed by History” reminds me of the comment that “history is interpretive.” I believe that Joe McCarthy was a political opportunist, that he bullied people, and that he made a huge political error when he accused General George Marshall of making decisions to give advantage to the Soviets and Chinese Communists. The decisions are easy to criticize, but there are few people who distrust the loyalty of Marshall.

Joe McCarthy’s accusations resulted in few if any communists being uncovered during his life. However, several of the people he accused were confirmed to have communist affiliations or were confirmed to be Soviet spies by the Venona project and/or by the archives opened after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The biggest mistake Joe made was that he severely underestimated the magnitude of Soviet espionage penetration of the U.S. government and military in the years during and after World War II. It isn’t difficult to see the negative impact from the failures of U.S. policy that resulted. The Soviets were able to steal all the Manhattan Project plans needed to make and detonate an atomic bomb. The U.S. military did halt their advance into Germany to allow the Soviets to take Berlin. The Soviets did dominate Eastern Europe after the war. The Chinese Communists did take over China and expelled the Nationalists to Formosa. There was a long and costly Cold War. Too bad Joe didn’t do a better job of warning us.

Election Politics

Posted on by

I nearly typed the title as “Election Year Politics,” but then was sad to realize that the next Presidential election is still about a year away. I don’t think I’ll begin a monthly countdown, because that would make the process to seem to last even longer. As a part-time Libertarian and dedicated Independent I mostly want the Republicans to decide on their nominee as soon as possible. Democrat spokespeople are puzzling whether Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, or some other Republican is the most evil person in America, and it is tedious listening to them trying to paint several people as the most evil while they await the Republican selection. The Republicans have the advantage that they already know that Barrack Obama is the most evil person, although there is some talk of Hillary getting back into the mix.

The arrival of the Tea Party (see the posting dated January 7, 2011 describing the origins), which apparently isn’t a political party at all, has been a further distraction or side show, depending on your view. And now we have the “Occupy” groups in various cities trying to decide what their message is beyond the fact they are enjoying protesting something and are angry about several things.

Much of front page of a recent Denver Post Perspective section was about the Tea Party, and pro and con views were given. A poll of Colorado voters not surprisingly found 79% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party while only 10% of Republicans agreed. The number I found most interesting was that only 36% of Independent/Others were favorable and 51% were unfavorable.

Curtis Hubbard’s article, “Where is the Tea Party taking us?’ lists people who are in the Tea Party as being called “Hostage –Takers, Heroes, Pariahs, Patriots, and Terrorists.”  It seemed to me that Democrats managed to energize enough voters who liked what the Tea Party was saying in the last national election to allow the Republicans to take control of the House of Representatives. (I can’t bring myself to credit the Republicans with being sufficiently clever to do that on their own.) I continue to be baffled by some the current rhetoric, but of course that’s probably because I’m not a skilled politician. As an example, let me give an example of what Robert Gibbs, former White House spokesperson recently said in an interview on NBC’s today show. He repeated what is becoming a Democrat campaign talking point that aims to cast the movement as extreme and divisive. ‘The Republicans are going to have to make a choice. Are they going to swear allegiance to the Tea Party, or are they going to work on behalf of the United States of America?’”  Michelle Bachmann recently explained the Tea Party by saying, “Let me say what the Tea Party stands for:  It stands for the fact that we’re taxed enough already. We shouldn’t spend more money than we’re already taking in. And, third, we should act within the Constitution.” Thinking about Bachmann’s explanation and the Gibbs’ comment, I wondered which of the three points Gibbs would consider un-American. I guess it must go back to that argument that we need to tax rich people more, and anyone who says otherwise is un-American. I posted a blog on the subject of how much we would need to tax rich people to be fair in December 2010, and my guess is that we would have to take all of the rich people’s money for some to consider it to be fair.  At least that is the approach that FDR proposed.

Going back to the polling about the Tea Party, the Denver Post articles recently said 40% of Americans now have a negative view.  I can’t help but wonder whether the media barrage of comments calling the non-existent party members “Terrorists” might have influenced those poll numbers.

For those who think my commentary has been slanted too far toward the Republicans, I will say one of my favorite comments about the differences between the two parties has been that Democrats want to tax and spend and Republicans want to spend and not tax. I believe the primary sin of the Tea Party is that the primary belief that neither approach is wise. A recent letter to the editor to the Idaho Statesman observed that witnessing Republicans and Democrats bicker over the U.S. debt is analogous to watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic.

Qaddafi is Dead, What Next?

Posted on by

Several events in the Mideast will have major influence on the reshaping the region. Egyptian Coptic Christians continue to be persecuted with the death of several shot at a recent gathering and the burning of another of their churches. Tunisia elected the assembly that will draft a new constitution and Muammar Gaddafi was captured and executed along with one of his sons. The election in Tunisia perhaps will have the most impact. An article by Charles Levinson in the Online Wall Street Journal leads off with the sentence, “In an election viewed as a template for emerging Mideast democracies, Tunisians appeared poised to offer a new narrative:  an assembly composed largely of an Islamist party promising a moderate platform, and two secular parties that have pledged to work with it.”

The Islamist Nahda Party won 43 of the 101 seats so far assigned of the 217-seat assembly that will rule for one year. The party has said it would not push for Islamist ideals in the new constitution. The Progressive Democratic Party that had campaigned heavily against Islamists won far fewer seats than had been expected. The U.S. government apparently isn’t skeptical about the outcome. Nahda leaders had visited with the State Department in Washington, D.C., and were said to be “…generally well received.” Aid to Tunisia had been increased before the election, and the Peace Corps will be reestablished. Hillary Clinton issued a statement praising the election, but with no mention of Nahda’s apparent victory.

There has been a flood of news reports since the execution of Muammar. I found a site that had a collection of political cartoons, and I appreciated many of them. My favorite was a cartoon that showed “Dozens of dangerous animals were shot dead in Oho this week…and one in Libya.” There was another that showed an oil pump from the Mideast to the U.S., with the captions “What could possibly go wrong.” Perhaps the most interesting was a depiction of President Obama on the Jay Leno show saying, “Jay, and then I personally beat Gaddafi to death with my Nobel Peace Prize.”

There is some pressure mounting for an investigation of Gaddafi’s death. It will be difficult to claim he was dead when discovered, since there is video of him being dragged from a drainage pipe wounded and bloodied, but still alive. He could be heard pleading for mercy for himself and his sons as he is being yanked around by his hair and beaten amidst taunts from his captors. The display of his shirtless corpse in a walk-in freezer was gruesome. I cannot help but cynically think, “Imagine the outrage if they had water boarded him.”

It is difficult to argue with the outcome of Gaddafi’s capture and death, which brought to mind Benito Mussolini’s execution in Italy during World War II. There were thousands of casualties in the bloody battle between the rebels and Gaddafi loyalists, and Gaddafi’s 42-year tyranny generated deserved hatred. He was buried in a secret location in the desert with the son who had been captured with him and his Defense Minister. He had three sons killed during the insurrection, but the one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, is still at large. He is thought to be trying to make it to make it to Niger to join other regime loyalists or perhaps to Algeria to join Gaddafi’s wife, daughter, and two other sons. There is concern that al-Islam might try to mount an insurgency against the new rulers if he succeeds at escaping to a country that won’t turn him over to the International Criminal Court to be tried for war crimes.

I’m more concerned about the speech given by the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council to announce Gaddafi’s death. He said, “…Islamic Sharia law would be the ‘basic source’ of legislation, and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.”