The Logic of Empire

Zbigniew Brzezinski [former National Security Advisor]: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980s, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul."

Le Nouvel Observateur*: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Zibigniew Brzezinski: "What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Empire? Some agitated Moslems [sic] or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

The United States operates 761 military installations worldwide with a total of over a quarter million personnel in 39 countries (including Osama Bin Laden's homeland of Saudi Arabia) according to the FY2008 DOD Base Structure Report. In July, 1998 the US refused to ratify the treaty establishing an international criminal court with jurisdiction over individuals. The basis for the refusal was that its "unique position" makes its personnel especially vulnerable to spurious charges of war crimes. On the last day of a deadly decade, a federal court judge threw out charges against five Blackwater (renamed Xe) mercenaries for the 2007 deaths of seventeen Iraqi civilians in Nisoor Square, Baghdad. Prosecutors built their case against the shooters on tainted evidence despite advice to the contrary from senior Department of Justice officials. Iraqis are understandably disillusioned about the dismissal. Said one wounded victim, "There is no justice. I expected the American court would side with the Blackwater security guards who committed a massacre in Nisoor Square." However, the court's written opinion dismissing the case was ninety pages long!

*January 15-21, 1998; Les Révélations d'un Ancien Conseiller de Carter

US PERSON is taking a Christmas break. Come back in the new year for more high impact blog at PERSONA NON GRATA.

Happy Holidays!

Cleaning Up the Mess

Some good news as the Christian holiday approaches: the American Smelting and Refining Company, ASARCO, agreed to a settlement of its pollution liabilities in nineteen states it was announced on December 10th by federal officials. Grupo Mexico, the parent company, is providing $1.79 billion for the bankrupt concern as payment to clean up 80 superfund sites created by the company's mining operations. ASARCO was a venerable name in the mining business, operating for 110 years as a vertically integrated holding company and then as an Arizona based copper mining and refining company. It filed for Chapter 11 reorganization on August 9, 2005. Grupo Mexico purchased the company in bankruptcy proceedings. Two of the more significant superfund sites affected by the settlement are the Tar Creek site in Ottawa County, Oklahoma and the Bunker Hill site in the Coeur d'Alene basin of northern Idaho. The Tar Creek site is highly contaminated by mine tailings deposited in mounds and retention ponds near residential communities and developed areas. Some of the piles are 200 feet high [photo] and contain lead, cadmium and zinc. The Bunker Hill site is on public land used by wildlife and migratory birds as habitat. Land, ground water and surface waters have been contaminated by mining operations. Caring for our planet by restoring damaged land is what Jesus would do.

[photo: courtesy EPA]

'Toontime: From Here Scrooge Looks Good

[credit: Pat Oliphant]

"Americans have grown gloomier about both the economy and the nation’s direction over the past three months even as the U.S. shows signs of moving from recession to recovery. Almost half the people now feel less financially secure than when President Barack Obama took office in January...Fewer than 1 in 3 Americans think the economy will improve in the next six months"-- Bloomberg national poll

America Looses Without Public Option

US Person is big enough to admit he is not always right. His prediction that the Senate bill would contain a public option when it passed turned out to be incorrect. But so are Senators Lieberman and Nelson. The only reason the public option failed in the Senate is because these two senators did the political equivalent of flipping the finger at the American public and their Democratic Senate colleagues. Nelson is called a "moderate", but has a voting record that belies the label. He is sponsored by the insurance industry, and he is holding out for political favors for his conservative constituency. A political hack's opposition to government health insurance is at least explainable. Who knows what goes on in 'Zion Joe's' head? The man campaigned for Robert Kennedy for pity's sake. Maybe his recalcitrance is simply political payback for Democratic opposition to his reelection or his failed presidential bid as suggested by the Washington press. One thing is certain he is not representing the desires of his state because the Connecticut legislature recently passed a statewide public health health care bill over the Republican governor's veto. The state program includes a public option! Why a Democratic state re-elects a senator that does his level best to derail progressive programs, and vote with the opposition on important policy matters is difficult to explain without considering the overriding importance of money in Washington. If the Senate bill actually requires the establishment of private non-profit insurance options, there is at least some hope that America will eventually get health care right. Emphasis on eventually because the Senate's protection of the insurance industry will not be corrected by what they have fashioned so far. The key to controlling health care costs has always been formulating price competition in a market gamed by the insurance companies. Either a new government insurance plan or extension of Medicare would have been a down payment on reform. Now, both proposals are off the table because just one senator would not put his foot on the alleged "slippery slope". The mendacity at work in Washington is of a level beyond description.

The Senate bill, even without a public option, must survive three cloture votes and the Senate-House conference committee process, the product of which is also subject to filibuster in the Senate by the forces of greed and ignorance. All because the Senate majority's will to act decisively in the interests of the American people has been enfeebled by the money power. Former Democratic party chairman Howard Dean says the Senate bill as it now stands "does more harm than good"; a conclusion starkly supported now that Americans will not only pay more than anyone else for health insurance, but they will be required by law to pay more to achieve near universal coverage. Legislators of courage and integrity have one more opportunity to inject reform into this deeply addicted process at the conference committee. We can only hope they prevail.

Deciding the Fate of Earth in Copenhagen

Besides the spectacle of Danish police bashing protesters, one of the few accomplishments of the global talks in Copenhagen will be the REDD (Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation) agreement. As US Person advised his readers before {10.26.09}, there is widespread agreement among the delegates that preserving forests from total destruction is an effective means of reducing global warming. Forests are prodigious carbon sinks because of transpiration. Details need to be worked out, but major areas of disagreement such as defining the rights of indigenous forest inhabitants like the Penan, have been worked out through compromise. Observers are confident a final agreement will be announced, probably timed for the arrival of Forty-four so he can make another speech claiming progress. Actually, precious little progress has been made on reducing carbon emissions primarily because of US and Chinese intransigence on setting reduction targets. Even the appearance of Al Gore reprising Moses with news of rapidly melting Greenland icecap and rising Atlantic sea levels failed to move negotiations forward. However, REDD will set up a payments scheme for poor countries as incentive for preserving intact forests. In return for contributions, rich countries will be able to claim carbon credits to partially offset their industrial emissions. As a Wilderness Society consultant put it, forests "have become a pot of money or a get out of jail free card". Yes, Virginia, life really is like a Monopoly® board.

Plug-In Hybrids: Too little, too late?

GM has tapped California as the place for rolling out the Chevy Volt in 2011. GM has even commissioned a catchy jingle to educate consumers about the plug-in EV which plays at auto shows were the Volt is on display. The price will not be inexpensive, $40,000, primarily because the car's lithium ion batteries will cost around $14,000. Besides the price tag a new analysis sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Energy may give pause to consumers willing to commit to a greener type of personal mobility. The report says that because of the higher front end costs to consumers--as much as $18,000 per car-- plug-in electric vehicles (PHEV) will not overtake internal combustion vehicles in the US car market for decades. The report estimates that with consumer acceptance there could be as many as 40 million PHEVs on the roads by 2030, but a more realistic number is 13 million. Even with government subsidies and advancements in battery technology bringing the cost down, PHEVs are not expected to impact carbon emissions until 2030. Gas consumption for extended range PHEVs like the Volt are significantly less than (<) current hybrids (55%). But because they are recharged from the electric grid, emissions from generating stations must be accounted for. If drivers are conscientious about charging their EVs a night when the electrical load is reduced, the current ramshackle electric grid could handle the new consumption.

The report assumes no breakthrough advancements in battery technology which could tip the balance in favor of electric vehicles. Nor does the study account for the possibility of charging more for gasoline to reflect the environmental and social cost of fossil fuel consumption. Former GM Vice Chairman and gear head* Bob Lutz thinks that gasoline beyond $4.00 a gallon will be necessary to motivate die-hard internal combustion enthusiasts to switch to electricity. Such an idea is a fiscal godsend for a future of expanding federal deficits, but is political heresy. Lutz is quick to disclaim any advocacy for higher gas prices, and is cautious about demand for his company's new electric car. Total demand by 2015 may only be in the range of 250,000 to 300,000 units. GM plans to introduce 8-10,000 units during the first year of production. The company has been roundly criticized for crushing its first electric car, the EV1, which it also introduced in California. Some commentators see battery prices dropping much more rapidly than the report assumes due to increases in longevity, recycling potential and energy density. Tesla VP Diarmuid O'Connell says his ion battery chemistry is already achieving 8% storage improvement per year which is equivalent to 2x over ten years. Nissan has announced its new Leaf PHEV already has 2x energy density. Owners of the Leaf will lease their batteries, thus reducing the car's purchase price.

*The 77-year-old executive laid down a challenge to owners of four-door sedans to beat his time of 2:56.321 around a wet Monticello Motor Club track set in his US$62,020 Cadillac CTS-V. He was beaten by a 21 year old driving a BMW M3 with a time of 2:50.424.