Clinton, Obama and Fear.

It isn't that I would be dead-set against a Hillary Clinton presidency. I will gladly work hard for whoever gets the nomination. We are blessed with a great group of candidates. Presidential timbre abounds all the way down the ballot. (Well, I suppose if some absurd twist of fate rendered unto us Kucinich or Gravel, I might have second thoughts.)

However, there is something to be said for going with your gut and backing those you believe in. It would be nice to have a candidate who one can wholeheartedly support as opposed to, "(s)he's better than the alternative," which is what it has boiled down to in three of the five presidential elections for which I have been voting age. Andrew Sullivan nails pretty well my thinking on the Clinton vs. Obama.
Clinton, Obama and Fear:

One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars. Here's a simple current example: her position on needle exchanges to reduce HIV transmission among IV drug users. Ben Smith recounts the tale here. The last Clinton administration refused to prevent HIV transmission this way, regardless of the science and epidemiology, because they were terrified of being labeled "liberal" by the GOP machine. Clinton still hasn't out-grown that (which is why I confidently predict that if she becomes president, progress toward gay equality will slow, because a leading Democrat will impede it in a long slog of triangulation and risk-aversion). Her classic formulation today is what it was before:

"We'll have as much spine as we possibly can, under the circumstances."

Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.

A1C. Brandon Kitchens, Hooligan, Patriot R.I.P.

A young man I did not know well enough. Member of the Whiskey Brothers Aught Five supporters' firm. By all outward appearances to those who did not know him, a feckless young hooligan. Yet nothing was further from the truth. Joined the Air Force and did three tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan and distinguished himself as a forward operating intelligence specialist. Brandon returned to us in May. He died Wednesday, 25 July playing the game he loved with friends. A born leader, full of passion, joy, comradeship and a thirst for justice. He was working with the Chicago 2016 Olympic Organizing Committee. Gone much, much too soon. He'll not soon be forgotten.

Addendum:Chicago Tribune story and bio.

This one's for you man. Dropkick Murphy's, "As One."

If This Is Economic Success...

The refrain heard most often from paleoconservatives with regards to taking serious steps to curb our dependence on fossil fuels and to reduce greenhouse emeissions is, that such measures will "threaten our economic well-being." Even today among so-called liberals the fear of change in carbon-burning behaviors will be blamed for the next economic downturn run rampant among Democrats who are jittery about even their meek efforts thus far.

Congress is debating a carbon cap-and-trade plan. But even as they do, knock-kneed Democrats such as Lieberman and Warner are conspiring to cripple the legislation by offering "emergency offramps to protect the economy if costs for cutting carbon dioxide rise too high."

Any legislation designed to prevent any disruptive effects on existing business practices (by usefully penalizing those slowest to change) can by definition have no serious effect on reducing carbon emissions.

And lets talk about this economy we are taking such great pains to preserve in its current, pristine state. An economy where the middle-class dream is quickly slipping away for the great majority of Americans. As this Chicago Tribune story makes clear, those who have good jobs must keep them at all costs because they are the last ones. Our country, which no longer actually manufactures much of anything is rapidly becoming one of rich and poor with those left in the middle desperately trying to avoid the drop.

As Brad DeLong pointed out in a useful video post a few months ago the gap between the richest and the poorest in this country is now as high as it was in the Gilded Age of the 1890's and of the Roaring Twenties just before the Great Depression.



In the graph below, supplied by DeLong, the triangular and black trend line shows the top 1% income bracket. As usual, click on the image for a larger view.

In the meantime, here in Iowa the largest economic development announcements in the last year are: a Google data center in Council Bluffs (new economy) and a number of wind-power related initiatives.

It is an inexorable law of both nature and of economics that when an economic or environmental niche opens up, there will be a surge of new entrants to exploit it. Only the fecklessness of our leaders -- and the fear their petro-economy contributors inspire in them -- hold us back from an economic renewal based upon the manufacturing and adoption of sustainable technologies in our society.

Ethanol and Food Price Volatility

Back from vacation. Now I need a post-vacation vacation to recover from hauling the kids all over Chicago to see the sights.

Just a quick one to get the ball rolling again. From Econbrowser a pointer to some recent research on corn production, food price volatility and how that will affect ethanol. Nut graph:

Food prices naturally are quite volatile because unpredictable and uncontrollable variation in weather can produce a bumper crop one year and a big shortfall the next. Usually consumers are able to mitigate somewhat the consequences of the volatility of supply by switching between foods depending on what is most cheap or expensive at the moment. However, whereas the demand for food is relatively price elastic, the demand for gasoline is quite inelastic. If the quantity of ethanol demanded does not fall much when there is a bad crop, the quantity of corn used for all other purposes must make an even bigger proportional adjustment. For example, if 1/2 of our corn crop were devoted to ethanol production and ethanol demand were completely price inelastic, a 10% reduction in corn production would require a 20% reduction in use of corn for other purposes.

A recent analysis by University of Illinois Professors Darrel Good and Scott Irwin notes that over the last half-century, corn-production shortfalls as big as 30% are not that uncommon. Very inelastic demand means that having a stable, reliable source for fuel is a very high priority for consumers. Having the supply for such a commodity depend on something as volatile as U.S. corn production does not seem like such a brilliant idea.

On Vacation

Back next week.

The Case for Impeachment, Part I: The Conservative Case.

Note: Since I started composing this during the Forth of July weekend a lot more has happened. All of it has only furthered my opinion that this administration must be slapped down, hard, for the sake of our future as a republic.

My thinking has progressed in the last couple of months. I used to be among those who held one of two opinions regarding impeachment. One, that impeachment would be a distraction, a partisan political circus that would get the Republicans backs up and in the end probably not accomplish much except to drag all involved even further down the abyss of cynicism and politics-as-usual. Two, that from a Progressive perspective, letting the current administration continue along its criminal, bumbling, traitorous course all the way through to November 2006 -- and making the GOP presidential candidates either defend it or walk away -- was the best strategy towards making a Democratic president in January, 2009 a foregone conclusion.

My attitude was a combination of the two. But in the last six weeks or so there has just been a torrent of insanity emanating from the general direction of The White House and One Observatory Circle that has forced me to rethink my position. From the Gonzalez mess, to the Libby commutation, to the cynical farce (QT video) regarding the status of the Office of the Vice President, I've finally seen enough.

My attitude now is that this gang has gone so far beyond the pale, so far outside even the very generous boundaries of our corrupt political culture that they are now a threat to the future of the Republic. My logic is simply thus: if the Bush Gang are able get away with all that they have done and if their only penalty is to simply slouch out of office in January, 2009 as public failures, their fortunes and reputations among their peers intact, their futures secure; then what chance do we have of ever getting a decent, honest and open government ever again?

In this first part of a two-part screed. I am going to lay out the rationale why the Republican Party itself should be supporting impeachment. Although, I do not make a habit of following the rantings of the 26% rump of the nation which continues to support Bush, I do pay attention to a number of conservative thinkers; Andrew Sullivan, Washington Post, Commissioner of Baseball, George Will, and the venerable, William F. Buckley, Jr..

Sullivan, arguably representative of the future of the GOP has long since abandoned the Bush Administration. Will, beltway-bound charter member of the Washington Establishment has not, but he grumbles , ominously. Buckley, representative of the Old Guard of the party has bailed on Bush as well and worries with good reason, that he may drag the party down with him. It is useful to note that the president's increasingly desperate defenders have begun to attack the conservative movement's eminence Gris, as "a coward."

So, the Conservative Case for Impeachment.

1. Domestic Spying: The Bush program of warrantless, mass domestic eavesdropping violates one of the sacred of conservative ideals -- or of small-d democratic ideals for that matter -- of freedom from constant surveillance by the government, the right to be left alone.
   
   Recent Revelations during el escándalo de Gonzales have shown that such loony left oddballs as former Attorney General, John Ashcroft, had strong reservations about the legality of the Administration's domestic spying program. Ashcroft resisted it from his sickbed. Not just Ashcroft, but also career Justice Department officials who apparently take seriously their oath to, "protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
   
   For those of a more Machiavellian outlook who might justify this program for it's (purported) necessity to give us the ability to track down (potential) terrorists, foreign and domestic. I will simply ask this question: if it remains legal and unpunished, how would you feel about it if it were under the control of the Hillary Clinton White House?
   
   This program is by all appearances an unconstitutional threat to the values and principles of the United States. It is in opposition to good conservative values and the administration's failure to justify its necessity or to testify to its breadth and extent certainly qualifies as a potential high crime or misdemeanor.



2. War on False Pretenses and War Crimes: The modern conservative movement has always had a bit of a isolationist streak. But practically speaking it has been (generally) practiced along lines of competence, think Howard Baker, Colin Powell. The greatest victory of a conservative president came through his canny ability to outflank and outlast its main rival, the Soviet Union, without resort to war.
   
   During the Revolutionary War, Thomas Paine wrote a number of pamphlets, mostly addressed as open letters to British military and government persons, called The American Crisis. In The American Crisis V, addressed to General William Howe, Paine wrote:
   

   
   "If there is a sin superior to every other, it is that of willful and offensive war. Most other sins are circumscribed within narrow limits, that is, the power of one man cannot give them a very general extension, and many kinds of sins have only a mental existence from which no infection arises; but he who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole contagion of hell, and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death."
   

   
   
   The invasion of Iraq, based on lies is bad enough. But multiple war crimes have been committed there, from Abu Ghraib to many instances of willful civilian murders. Open source records, especially those from General Taguba, indicate that these violations of both federal, military and international laws took place with the sure knowledge and probable approval of the highest levels of the Administration.
   
   The invasion itself, in both its motives and its execution was clearly in opposition to conservative values. The behavior of the U.S. in Iraq and our crimes there have severely eroded our international standing, but more than that, have put all American soldiers, sailors and airmen at risk. Just ask the families of the two poor troopers who were captured in battle last month.
   


3. Suspension of Habeus Corpus & Extra-Judicial Detentions: "The Great Writ," habeus corpus, which is latin for, "produce the body," simply states that the government cannot imprison a person without having to bring the suspect before a judge in open court and justify the charges against him/her. It is one of the fundamental building blocks not only of the American justice system, but that of most civilized nations.
   
   The idea that a government can simply pick a person up off the street and throw them into jail indefinitely with no need to give justification to anyone outside the government is simply abhorrent to the civilized mind. Whether that person is a citizen of the country in question or not is irrelevant. If the United States wishes to have decent relations with its neighbors in the world it must abide by the rules of global society, which say that only dictatorships and barbarian states do such things.
   
   No law or policy put forward by this administration has withstood judicial scrutiny with regards to the one American citizen thus treated, or to those in Guantanamo. The status of those who have disappeared into the national security apparatus cannot even be discussed because it is so top secret.
   
   Again, for those who might justify this on its purported necessity, one simply has to ask the question, how will you feel about it when these powers are in the hands of those whose political aims you oppose? For example, what if, under some future liberal administration the scope of "potential terrorist" is expanded to include those who possess automatic weapons?
   
   No, these violations of our constitution are too egregious to permit any administration to continue to wield them.
   

That is merely the reading of the high crimes and misdemeanors. From open source materials alone, there is ample substance there for the average American to conclude that George Bush and Dick Cheney are answerable for serious offences against the American people and their Constitution. It would be up to the Senate to determine guilt or innocence of course.

Crude political logic seems to me to indicate that if the conservative movement wishes to remain relevant in American politics they should lead or at least be vocal from the rear in forcing this Administration to defend itself against high crimes and misdemeanors.

The longer the conservative mainstream and the Republican Party continues to support Bush and more relevantly -- those like Guliani and Romney who wish to replace his person but not his policies -- the less likely they are to ever hold power again in this country (by any legitimate means) for the foreseeable future.

But a movement to impeach, abetted and supported by leading conservatives would send a strong signal to the nation that the movement and the party has had enough and absolutely rejects the methods, policies and criminality of the Bush Gang and their brand of "conservatism." The "conservatism" of George Bush and Dick Cheney bears no resemblance to the conservatism of Goldwater, Buckley or even Bush The Elder. It resembles Franco much more so than Regan. Its continued existence should be considered a threat to all people who value individual liberty, economic liberty and the American experiment.

It being the 4th of July and all, let's close with another example of prose from that great Patriot, Thomas Paine, from the The American Crisis: I, which he wrote supporting the Revolution:

"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America."

Top Of The World Ma!

This one is just for fun. A panoramic view of the view atop Mt. Everest. The image is just a cropped version. Click on the thmbnail to get the whole thing.

From the Astronomy Picture of the Day site hosted by NASA, which is an everlasting source of wonder. It should be in everyone's bookmark list.

Felony > High Crimes & Misdemeanors

Just so we're all clear on this, actively preventing someone from obeying a Congressional subpoena is a felony under U.S. Code.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress-

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like a pretty clear-cut bit of statute right there. Of course, the Solicitor General will be able to run this through the court system until the clock runs out on the administration.

One of the little known things about Congressional power is that congressional committees work almost exactly like courts and judges with regards to their ability to summon people to testify.

Such that when Congress subpoenas a person, they have to show up. They can plea the Fifth or waive their letter of executive privilege or whatever, or just clam up and risk contempt charges but they have to show up. You can't just blow off a subpoena. It is one of the basic little building blocks of our system of democracy. If summoned you are obligated to appear. If you don't appear, or if you prevent someone from appearing it is a felony.

Blog Guide: Think Articles, Not Posts

Application and web usability expert, Jacob Neilson writes that it is better to write well-researched articles of some lenght, than short blog posts that comment on transient issues.

"Blog postings will always be commodity content: there's a limit to the value you can provide with a short comment on somebody else's comments. Such postings are good for generating controversy and short-term traffic, and they're definitely easy to write. But they don't build sustainable value. Think of how disappointing it feels when you're searching for something and get directed to short postings in the middle of a debate that occurred years before, and is thus irrelevant

My objective and hope is that I ride the line on the side of value-added content. But the time involved, especially in the summer when there are so many other, more interesting things to do becomes a barrier. Witness my upcoming impeachment screed, which still lies in the drafts queue, 70% finished.

My most-accessed posts/articles over the last three or four months are the ones I worked hardest on and are also the longest, most in-depth:

• Building Code Kerfuffle


• The two long background pieces on the economics of ethanol, "Bottom Line Economics on Ethanol," and "Ethanol Market Fundamentals."


• Guide to Taking Your Kids to Chicago on the Cheap

So, it is a case of the old saying, "Quality beats quantity."

Automobiles Per Capita Infoporn.

Via the venerable, Policy Pete, comes this interesting graph, courtesy of ExxonMobil: (As always, click on graphic for larger view.)






The OECD, for those not familiar with the myriad international organizations is an organization of economically developed, democratic countries devoted to peace and prosperity. It was orignally set up after WWII. It includes, as one might expect, all the European democracies, Canada and the U.S., as well as Australia, et. al. Full membership list here . OECD membership is often used in geo-economic studies as shorthand for "the First World," or "The Northern Economies." Notably absent are; China, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil, and the rest of South America. In other words, more than two-thirds of the Earth's population.

Back to the graph. Note that both axes are on a log scale and that the top value of the y-axis is 1000 cars per 1000 people. Note also how as the non-OECD countries start to have larger segments of the population achieving reasonable living standards how the value starts to get very close to that 1:1 ratio.

What do you suppose the oil demand curve will start to look like as more and more of the 3-billion plus non-OECD humans start to get into that US$20,000 - 40,000 range? Note the total fleet. It nearly triples from 2000 to 2030.

Impeachment is Too Good For 'Em.

But I'd take it as a start. From the Daily Kos, a snippet from a Judiciary Committee Report following the 1974 Watergate hearings.

In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected...

I'll spell out in some more detail over the long, patriotic weekend why I've changed my position on the impeachment issue. The gist of the matter is that this gang of thugs is so far beyond the pale that if they get away with this what hope is there of EVER getting anyone honest in the presidency (or any other office) again. I believe that this is an existential (in both senses of that word) crisis for the Republic.

Visionary Speech on Fossil Fuels

See below for who and when.

Our civilization rests upon a technological base which requires enormous quantities of fossil fuels. What assurance do we then have that our energy needs will continue to be supplied by fossil fuels: The answer is - in the long run - none.

The earth is finite. Fossil fuels are not renewable. In this respect our energy base differs from that of all earlier civilizations. They could have maintained their energy supply by careful cultivation. We cannot. Fuel that has been burned is gone forever. Fuel is even more evanescent than metals. Metals, too, are non-renewable resources threatened with ultimate extinction, but something can be salvaged from scrap. Fuel leaves no scrap and there is nothing man can do to rebuild exhausted fossil fuel reserves. They were created by solar energy 500 million years ago and took eons to grow to their present volume.

In the face of the basic fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite, the exact length of time these reserves will last is important in only one respect: the longer they last, the more time do we have, to invent ways of living off renewable or substitute energy sources and to adjust our economy to the vast changes which we can expect from such a shift.

Fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and care not one whit how his offspring will fare.

Current estimates of fossil fuel reserves vary to an astonishing degree. In part this is because the results differ greatly if cost of extraction is disregarded or if in calculating how long reserves will last, population growth is not taken into consideration...

For it is an unpleasant fact that according to our best estimates, total fossil fuel reserves recoverable at not over twice today's unit cost, are likely to run out at some time between the years 2000 and 2050, if present standards of living and population growth rates are taken into account. Oil and natural gas will disappear first, coal last. There will be coal left in the earth, of course. But it will be so difficult to mine that energy costs would rise to economically intolerable heights, so that it would then become necessary either to discover new energy sources or to lower standards of living drastically.

But, unless science can perform the miracle of synthesizing automobile fuel from some energy source as yet unknown or unless trolley wires power electric automobiles on all streets and highways, it will be wise to face up to the possibility of the ultimate disappearance of automobiles, trucks, buses, and tractors. Before all the oil is gone and hydrogenation of coal for synthetic liquid fuels has come to an end, the cost of automotive fuel may have risen to a point where private cars will be too expensive to run and public transportation again becomes a profitable business.

This speech was given by Admiral Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear navy and key early organizer of the commercial nuclear power industry, on May 14, 1957, to the Minnesota State Medical Association. Full text, well worth reading in its entirety for its startling prescience is available via The Oil Drum.