war with China

It seems increasingly likely that a war with China is on the horizon. As that nation keeps growing, its demands for ever shrinking resources become louder and clearer. So too its displays of force. Most recently, the excursions into the China Sea and the gas-field disputes with Japan have racked up tensions in the East. These are signs nobody should ignore.

It is clear that China's economy is growing at a furious pace. Despite a worldwide recession and presumably lower demand from the West, China keeps on chugging along. Although it initially showed signs of collapse, that danger is now averted and it appears China will keep growing no matter what. Unfortunately for us, that means an even greater danger is developing.

I have remarked earlier that there are few options here. Either China cools off, or implodes or we are on a path to war. It will not happen in the next few years, but you can see it coming from a mile away. There simply aren't enough resources on the planet to bring China up to our standard of living. Not that that standard of living is all that wonderful, mind you. It is mostly a standard of waste. But apparently, that is what humans crave. The ability to gobble up and waste tons of goodies. And it appears this is one nightmare that will ultimately come true.

ungovernable

Under the title, "It hasn't been pretty" the Economist reviewed the status of the health care reform bill, before the Massachusetts debacle. As everyone knows, the Economist is not exactly a liberal or left wing publication. As a rule it sides with conservatives and although it is not as extreme as the Wall Street Journal, it is usually in the same camp.

Reading the article makes it plain that the US is undemocratic and coming close to being ungovernable. The results in Massachusetts only add more evidence here. One senator will block a bill that was approved -albeit in different incarnations- in both houses. And that senator is part of a very small minority yet he will stop the majority in its tracks. Clearly democracy is dead. If that doesn't worry you, wake up.

The article lists four key issues. First is the undemocratic nature of the US Senate. With two senators representing each state, regardless of population size, the Economist points out that 41(sic) senators from the 21 smallest states, representing 10% of the population could band together and block any bill.

This perverse consequence (sic) of the Senate's make-up may never have been so apparent as now, due to the second issue, extreme partisanship. More than 7 out of 10 votes in the Senate are party-unity votes according to Congressional Quarterly. There are no more compromises being made in the US Senate. That is why we are approaching ungovernability.

The third issue is lobbying. This was also pointed out by others. According to the Centre for Responsive Politics $425 million was spent in the first nine months of 2009 to induce modifications in the bill. Former CMS commissioner Thomas Scully gave a talk recently where he pointed out how the Obama administration had struck deals and paid off hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and the health-insurance industry before the bill even took shape.

What this shows more than anything is who really controls the legislative process in this country. It is not the will of the people, but the interests of multi-billion dollar corporations that comes first. Without such horse-trading the bill would never have made it to the floor.

So whatever you think or learn about Congress making laws, rest assured that these laws have already been vetted and adjusted to make sure that the real powers get what they need. This is de facto a oligarchy of corporate big-wigs making law.

Lastly, not to be forgotten, is pork. Pork is the item that usually gets the most bad press, and it is certainly a nuisance item and something that adds unnecessary cost and complexity to the process. But pork is not a threat to democracy. It is also an order of magnitude less evil the other three issues.

We can be idealist all we want, but we won't create a government without pork. There will always be pork or benefits that representatives bring home to their constituents. One could safely argue that pork is of the essence in democracy.

However you feel about pork, it simply doesn't work to build a government without it. So stop worrying about pork and focus on the real issues that threaten this country.

massachusetts

Much has been said and will be said about the senate vote in Massachusetts, but in reality the outcome was not unexpected. Especially not in light of what happened earlier in Virginia and New Jersey. And even less so when you hear the talk inside the beltway. Democrats are bracing for a loss of up to 30 seats in midterm elections. Clearly they know something is up. Some of the more prominent ones have already preempted a defeat by declaring they won't run again.

There is no doubt that this string of losses is a rebuke to Obama. The new president's popularity is low compared to that of his predecessors. He barely tops Carter and comparisons with Carter are sure to follow. Unfortunately a lot of it is of his own doing.

The keys to defeat lie in the unrealistic expectations that were only topped by the even more unrealistically high fundraising. Both are coming home to roost.

I agree with Krugman at the NY Times that Obama made serious mistakes. The stimulus was too small and it did not reach the intended beneficiaries. The bankers got bailed out without so much as a slap on the wrist, while middle class families are losing their homes, their retirement, and their savings. It is obvious Obama is in bed with Wall Street. I pointed this out before and predicted it would cause major problems.

I also agree with the Rutten at the LA Times that the administration did not do a good job explaining healthcare. While it addresses the 30 million uninsured, it appears to offer little or nothing to the 270 million who have insurance. All they can see is more deficits that they know they will have to pay for. Never mind that their coverage could lapse, that they might be bumped when they need it, or that they will find out it does not cover their expenses. For now it appears to them that things are OK.

But Rutten goes further. He points to the anger that he says is due to the fact that American middle class families are worse off than their parents. Some of that may be a factor. The American economy is not so much a wealth creator as it is a wealth shifter. It has shifted massive amounts of wealth from the poor and the middle class into the hands of the few. In doing so it has bankrupted over half the population. The shifting is running out of resources to shift.

Everything was done by deceptive means. US style capitalism appeals to people's worst behaviors such as greed, lust, pride, envy and gluttony while making fun of altruism, cooperation, and moderation. It pits people against their friends and neighbors. It uses fear and anger and preys on feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. It relies on illegal immigrants and workers on job-related visas that have no bargaining power and can be used to undercut the wages those who seek a decent living. It uses layoffs to boost quarterly earnings, and promote job-insecurity in workers.

It has promoted women, not because it believes in feminism, but because additional lower paid workers helped create an environment that is aversive to organizing, unionizing, and bargaining power. It also helped create a false sense of wealth and that drove more consumption.

It uses open markets and tax payer subsidized oil to bring in items from abroad, where labor laws are lax and environmental issues of no concern. It treats many parts of the world as colonies to be stripped of resources and valuables.

Furthermore, the unfortunate situation is leading to a country that is becoming ungovernable. The State of California has already reached that impasse. Soon the nation will follow. Like Rome before it, the American republic may soon become a dictatorship or go down in anarchy.

emotional response

The quake and devastation in Haiti has fueled a charity drive of immense proportions. It is too bad that we did not feel the same way towards the Haitian people before the disaster struck. Other than use the country's many orphanages to ensure a steady supply of adoption babies, most people in the US did not care much for Haiti or the fate of its people.

Haiti is a prime example of a poor country that was raped and destroyed by Western powers. At the root of Haiti's problems lies an environmental disaster that was fueled by greed and over-exploitation all inflicted by its former colonial rulers and later trade partners. Haiti is used as a prime example of how not to do things in Jared Diamond's famous book, "Collapse." The story of Haiti, the poorest country in this hemisphere, is contrasted with that of the Dominican Republic, a nation that shares the same island real estate but fared rather well, even by absolute measures.

There is another thing I would like to point out at this time. It was first highlighted after the Sept 11 attacks, when it became apparent that the Red Cross was using charitable donations given on that occasion for other purposes. Clearly the Red Cross was doing the sensible thing, albeit in a somewhat sneaky manner. Unfortunately, common sense is not a quality that characterizes many Americans, who would rather go for the gut.

The actions of the Red Cross, deplorable as they may have been to many people, were actually very reasonable and ensured a maximal bang for the buck. When it comes to helping people, it is often better to stay cool and rational and apply funding where it can help, rather than be overly emotional and waste money. And wasting money is something we Americans are very good at, especially in times of disaster. The majority of funds raised on such occasions never reach the intended victims. But god forbid that these funds should be used to help others. Isn't it so much better to just throw the money out? Or buy trailers that sit around in Arkansas while the people in New Orleans beg for shelter? Because that is what happens in the real world.

But then again, you could argue Americans do not just want to help any random person. If they did, clearly we would have better social programs in this country. It appears Americans mostly want to show the world how generous they are, or maybe they feel the need to something to get rid of that little bit of guilt they experience when watching poverty in their cities and around the globe. I am not sure, do you know?

rain barrels

It seems cities are slowly coming around to the idea of rain barrels and rain storage. Last night we attended a meeting to discuss the benefits of rain water capture. It is simply amazing how little people know about it. You would think that individuals living in a near desert would be aware of the value of water. But that turns out not to be true. Very likely it is because water is so cheap. You turn on the faucet and let it run. You take long showers and flush toilets, all blissfully unaware of how unsustainable these habits really are.

It is not just a matter of being unsustainable --although that should really be a top priority. But people do not care much about the future as long as that future is not immediate. They always think, we are too busy, and besides we will fix all our problems in due time. They have been told over and over again about the American spirit and how it will overcome all ills -until such time of course when the ills are too big to overcome.

But we need to think about the immediate effects. The flooding, the mudslides, and the 1 trillion gallons of sewage overflow every year. These things are real, and they can be helped by simply collecting rain water and releasing it later. Even if we did nothing else but collect the water on our roofs and then release it the next day -which would be a bit stupid given all the good uses for rain water- we would save millions of dollars.

In Europe, where it rains a lot, people collect rain water. Many use it to water their lawns, or vegetable gardens in the brief dry spells that occur during the year. But many more use it to flush toilets, do laundry and even take showers. You may shudder at this idea, because you probably think rain water is dirty. You may think that having it fall onto the earth and seep through many layers cleans it up. Isn't that what the commercials for alpine water tell you? Think again.

Rain water is very pure. It does acquire some stuff while on the roof and in the gutters, but the damage done there is rather minimal. Especially once the storm has picked up some steam. The flow is so large that it quickly cleans the surfaces. And whatever dirt is picked up will quickly settle in a large storage tank. The real problem with rain water -if you were to consider using it to drink- is storage. That is where the contamination happens.

However, it is not something to worry about. This type of contamination is not only easy to remove, it also does not matter much for most uses. Much of our daily water use does not require ultra-clean water. Most water is flushed down the toilet. You don't need ultra-pure water to flush your toilets. Nor do you need it to do the laundry. You don't even need it for showers.

But the main problem is not here. It lies in making rain water storage and use easy. As easy as turning on a faucet. Because people are lazy. They want things automatic. And making rain water use automatic is trivial when you are building a house. Unfortunately, most homes are built without such provisions so that leaves retrofitting. Retrofitting however, is expensive and it is not something people will do without incentives. They would rather vote for a desalination plant. That is easy.

So here is an idea for our government. Give out grants and create incentives to retrofit homes. Make water expensive too so people start thinking they need to start saving or do something about it. That would be a sign of leadership. Cancel that desalination plant. There is plenty of water running down the drain after every storm that hits California.

play doh, peanut butter, and dangerous things

You'll be happy to know that TSA stopped a dangerous terrorist toddler from taking the banned substance, known as play doh aboard an airliner. Apparently, this life-saving intervention was made possible by the new technology known as total body peepshows. It was not revealed where the toddler had hidden the dangerous material that some experts say rivals PETN in consistency.

The parents were happy TSA had intervened and saved so many innocent lives. The politically correct were quick to point out this great example of the benefits of not profiling. "Profiling is just wrong," they were quoted as saying, "this latest incident shows that even Caucasian toddlers traveling with their mothers can be extremely dangerous."

The CIA, the NSA and other overpaid spy agencies may not be able to put two and two together, but when it comes to saving the traveling public, TSA is clearly on the dough.

harboring terrorists

You may have thought that after George W's strong words, nations would shy away from harboring terrorists. Think again! What better way for warlords in poor countries to attract US funding than having a few rogue terrorists hiding in the bushes?

The beauty of it all. A terrorist can be anyone you don't like. Political rivals, religious or non-religious types, anybody anywhere who is not in charge but wants to be can become a terrorist. Especially if they have ever resorted to, or can be accused of resorting to violence.

Did you notice how quickly our friend Putin reacted to George's battle cry? He almost beat Israel to the punch and that is saying something. Those pesky Chechen's quickly became terrorists with links to Al Qaeda. And here is another benefit. Proving ties to Al Qaeda is as easy as it comes. The US intelligence machine even managed to link Saddam to Al Qaeda. Anyone and anybody can be tied to Al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, once you are labeled a terrorist you automatically qualify for membership in Al Qaeda.

Yesterday's guest at the NPR Newshour was quick to point out that the leadership in Yemen has every incentive to harbor Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda's presence means US foreign aid to Yemen's leadership. Once Al Qaeda is gone, Yemen would be left to its own (very meager) devices.

In case you think this is a new development, think again. Latin American dictators have played this same game with drug lords. Think Columbia. Where would Columbia's leaders be without cocaine? Left to fight their own desperate wars.

Even Afghanistan is making drug appeals lest the call of terror alone be insufficient. But they need not worry so much. The TAP alone will do the trick.

monuments to failure

Today, the world's largest building -828 meters- opened in Dubai. It is supposed to be a bold statement and a testament to the achievement of Dubai, a small nation that many think is showing the way to the future. (It surely is but not the future these people envision)

Visitors to Dubai will tell you how advanced and futuristic the country looks. They will tell how America has lost its edge and how all the new gadgets -if gadgets are not a sign of progress what is?- are in Dubai. Some friends have urged me to visit Dubai to get a glimpse of what is to come.

Face it skeptics around the globe, isn't Dubai's latest phallic symbol the ultimate proof of success? And isn't it a great way to forget all about that nasty little default?

When Jared Diamond argues how the people on Easter island kept on hewing statues in the face of habitat destruction, some of us would tend to wonder. Are people really that stupid? Would they really go on with their silly quests when everything around them is falling apart? Would they not stop and try to fix the problems instead? The short answer is no.

It is customary in the West to look upon civilizations through the lens of buildings and monuments. The great civilizations of the past are those that have left behind stone or steel ornaments. The more imposing the monument, the more advanced the society, is our mantra. So it is good to see when history in the making highlights the fallacy of that argument. Monuments are better seen as illustrations of failure. Sorry Parthenon!

It has been argued before that collapse nearly always comes at the pinnacle of success. And there are a a couple of reasons why this counter-intuitive idea is so plausible. First, there is the inherent lag time. The tower in Dubai was started when all was going great. It continued to grow while Dubai was falling apart. It had already been set in motion. Much like the continued housing construction in 2008-9 when the bubble burst. These projects were already financed and what were builders to do but to keep going?

Second, collapses are abrupt events that happen when human societies -which have even larger lag times due to the life expectancy of individuals- overextend themselves. This is far more likely to happen when populations are near a max. At the max, consumption and waste is near its peak too. Dubai is a fake economy built on oil. When oil runs out, so will Dubai. It is an inhospitable place made to look good by energy. Like a patient on a respirator. When you pull the plug it is over.

Third, when primates are idle -and I say primates because the following applies to monkeys and apes too- the arts flourish. Zoos have shown that bored apes start painting when given the opportunity. When people are idle they find something to do. And what is there to do other than build and decorate useless and imposing structures? Leave a legacy.