Things not looking good for Herr Rove...

One can only hope that this will be what Karl Rove's typical day will be like 6 months from now.

Read More...

Summary only...

What happened on 9/11?

Two main failings I see with some of us on the left is a romantic attraction to revolutionaries while turning a blind eye to the flaws, such as human rights abuses (a la Chavez/Castro/Guevara) and a love for conspiracy theories, no matter how factually challenged and outlandish. I'm not talking about the JFK-grassy knoll type, I mean ideas like the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition (not by the planes, instead charges planted and detonated conveniently at the time of impact), or that a missile or a fighter plane crashed into the Pentagon. Things like this really give the more sensible of us on the left a bad name in the credibility department, kinda like those that can't take a shit in the morning without consulting their horoscope first. I've always thought that most of the conspiracy theories don't hold water, but neither does the official version.

Apparently, Ernest Partridge over at the Crisis Papers feels as as I do. I point you now to his essay, 'The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View'. Very thoughtfully, he takes some of the popular conspiracy theories, as well as the official version and using well-researched facts and logical analysis, catapults the bullshit. It is quite clear that we may never know the full story. Do I believe Bushco actually demolished the towers themselves? That's giving them credit for way more intelligence that they repeatedly have shown they do not posses, not to mention the sheer stretch of the imagination it would involve to pull it off and keep it under wraps. Do I think they might have looked the other way or 'misunderestimated' the threat with the hopes of using it for political gain? Certainly. That is much more in line with the way these scumbags operate.

And lest some of you think Partridge is some kinda right-winger-Bush apologist, have a look around the Crisis Papers site. He is about as anti-Bush as he comes. He just knows how to use his brain.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Christian conservative that actually gets it (regarding the environment, at least)

It's often baffling when looking at conservatives and you wonder how certain things tie in with each other, such as how is laissez-faire capitalism tied to gun rights, or opposition to abortion to anti-environmentalism. In his book, 'Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think', congnitive scientist George Lakoff tries to shed some light on it by breaking it down into two metaphorical archetypes that use family: the 'strict father' and the 'nurturant parent' models. It's a bit of a scholarly book, but worth a read, for a lot of it makes sense.

In particular, environmentalism being of interest to me, I've always focussed on the anti-environmentalism prevalent in the evangelical movement. A line of thinking is one that ties in with dominionism, basically saying that Jesus is gonna return soon and destroy it all, so why bother protecting it? Genesis says that 'God gave dominion over the plants and animals', and therefore they are here for us to use as we see fit. You might even remember James Watt, Reagan's secretary of the Interior who publicly stated this position and was thankfully replaced because of the outrage it raised. Now, let me make clear that I am not insinuating this is how all evangelicals think, but it seems to be the prevalent viewpoint, at least publicly.

However, there is the flip side of that. The other evangelical viewpoint is that since God created it, it is good, and therefore humans should be the stewards and take care of what God has created for them. I now point you to this eloquent article by a Christian conservative by the name of Rod Dreher, a self-titled 'crunchy con', entitled 'A Green Christian Conservative'. What struck me the most is how he takes on the one of the sacred cows of modern conservatism, an 'arrogant refusal by a modern consumerist society to accept limits on its desires.' He also talks about the spiritual duty to take care of the earth. I am hopeful that his viewpoint will be more accepted in the evangelical community as time goes on. It's not going to change my mind about the idea that these are some generally severely deluded people, but it at least gives us one thing in common.

Read More...

Summary only...

While we're on the subject...

'The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: Most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.'

From the 'Atheist Manifesto' by Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith", which I've mentioned before. Also, a great Sam Harris interview, here.

Read More...

Summary only...

A blog worth checking out...

I'd like to let you know about a blog I recently stumbled across. It's called 'Atheist Exposed 2'.
It's a blog by a Texas woman named Shirley Setterbo. She works in the Texas correctional system, and the blog is about her 'coming out' as an atheist. What makes her stories so striking for me is what a different reality she lives in Texas than I do in good 'ol heathen Vermont . The idea of having to be in 'the closet' as an atheist is so foreign to me. I remember reading her original blog back when she worked in a prison, and was just shocked at how people reacted. She worried about losing friends and her job. Even at her new job, where she recently put an atheist bumper sticker on her car, she's starting to feel the sense of 'otherness'.

What she goes through really makes me feel fortunate to live in a more tolerant part of the country. Can any of you identify with her?

Read More...

Summary only...

Giu la Testa

Ok, as some of you may know, I love Italian westerns, in particular those of director Sergio Leone. He was best known for the 'Dollars trilogy', the films that made Clint Eastwood an international star. After the trilogy, he went on to make two more westerns. In 1968, it was 'Once Upon a Time in the West', with Charles Bronson and Henry Fonda, one of my all-time favorite movies. In 1971, he made one more, about the Mexican revolution. Depending on when and where you saw it, it was called 'Giu La Testa'(Keep your head down') in Italy, 'Once Upon a Time... the Revolution', in France, in the UK, it was 'A Fistful of Dynamite', and in the U.S., it was 'Duck, You Sucker', and when that title did poorly, it was changed to 'A Fistful of Dynamite'.

This is definitely a political film...Leone's take on the concept of revolution, inspired by both the '68 student uprisings in Paris, as well as his distaste for the way the Mexican revolution was portrayed in cinema up until that point, quite romanticized. It opens with a quote from Mao Tse-tung, which not surprisingly, was removed from the U.S. version:

"[A] revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution an act of violence."

The film stars American actors James Coburn and Rod Steiger. Coburn plays an Irish revolutionary named John Mallory, who has a taste for blowing things up. Steiger plays Mexican bandit Juan Miranda. Together they eventually conspire to rob a bank. The bank turns out to not be a bank, but a prison holding political prisoners. Juan unwittingly becomes a hero of the revolution, after liberating the prison in his search for loot.

On deeper level, there is much to say about the cost of revolutions and the toll it takes on friends and families. Through flashbacks, we see back to a betrayal of sorts in John's days back in Ireland. The end of the movie gives us a flashback(which was trimmed to 30 seconds in the American cut) in which it puts John's other flashbacks in a completely different context. So, unlike many westerns, there is a depth and substance to this film, as well as an emphasis on character development. There are many scenes that evoke other historical moments, such as the mass slaughters of Jews in WWII. The political messages were quite apparent, especially that revolution is not something to be romanticized. It is ugly, and takes a staggering toll on humanity.

And now, the review... this is the only Leone film not currently available in the United States, so I had to get it from the UK. There was an excellent restoration job done on this film, the colors and sounds are fantastic, and the picture is very clear. It is also noteworthy because this version has the 22 minutes restored that were cut from the US release. If you know anything about Leone, his films tend to be quite long, and by the time they make it to the US, are usually edited beyond what he would have intended. I liked this movie. Coburn is great, kind of in a laid back humorous way, unlike Eastwood's silent 'Man with No Name'. Steiger is awesome, though. When you watch, at first you wonder if he is overacting, but then as the character develops, you see that isn't the case. He succeeds in making a riff-raff of a human being into a likeable, emotional human character, and the events that Juan and John go through together have changed them very much by movie's end. Steiger was surprisingly really convincing as a Mexican, not the stretch of the imagination of, let's say, Marlon Brando in 'Viva Zapapta'.

One common criticism of Leone's films is pacing. It is not unusual to have a scene consisting of a character's silent face for several minutes. Often, it adds to the suspense, but sometimes in this film it slows it down. There are a few moments where the typical 'Leoneisms', such as the extreme closeups of eyes or mouths, sudden camera zooms, etc. start to almost become a cliche at this point. Yet there is also some AMAZING cinematography here as usual, often involving wide shots or interesting lighting techniques. A favorite one for me involved a scene where Coburn's character witnesses something rather disturbing, and at the end of the scene, we see his still, stoic face slowly fade to shadow.

The score by Ennio Morricone is excellent, albeit quite strange at times. The release also comes with a great bonus disk featuring several interesting documentaries. It is also worth noting that many other Italian westerns at this time were becoming more political, such as Damiano Damiani's excellent 'A Bullet for the General'. This is known as the second period in Italian westerns. The first would have been primarily the emergence of the Italian style, think 'Fistful of Dollars' or 'Django'. the second phase was more political, in part in influence of the world's events at the time, as well as a soul-searching in Italy regarding its flirtation with Fascism during WWII. The third period, which was early-mid 70's was the comedy-western, a bit less serious and self parodying. These are best exeplified by the 'Trinity' series starring Terrence Hill.

This was my least favorite of the Leone westerns because the pacing felt a bit slow to me at times. yet still a very good movie. I enjoyed it even more because I am currently reading about the Mexican revolution, so I understood the context and characters. If you can get a hold of the restored version, I would recommend it, but I would also recommend seeing the Dollars trilogy and 'Once Upon a Time in the West' before seeing this film, for I think you'll appreciate it more after understanding Leone's style.

Read More...

Summary only...

FSM vs. The American Taliban

More wingnuttery to report from the enlightened holy state of Kansas. A teacher posting a picture of the beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster has been ordered to take it down. The FSM, as you probably know was a mythical creture created in part to mock the 'intelligent design' crowd who have somehow managed to sneak ID in the door in public schools in Kansas.

The Witchita Eagle reports:

'The monster's picture has hung on the door since September or October and was put up there as a joke, Mousley said.

"It's a parody," he said. "It's just making fun of anti-evolution."

Mousley said he doesn't teach students about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Also on the door is a Doonesbury comic strip about science, said board member Carol Rupe, who represents Wichita. She also voted against the new standards.

"It was two little pieces of paper on the door," she said. "It was poking good fun."

Gamble said she told the principal that it was his decision whether the monster could stick around.'

Ridiculous.

Read More...

Summary only...

Happenings...

Well, things are moving rather fast around here, wouldn't you say? Since my post on 'Losing the Military' (see below), three more retired generals have come out agingst Rumsfeld, making a total of six. Hmm. Could my post have had something to do with it? Yeah, right. Some of those speaking out have actually served in Iraq. Anyways, it will be interesting to see if any active members of the military start speaking out. I know it isn't easy, but it could happen.

It seems like the press is finally starting to wake up. You can only spin the bullshit so much, I guess. Hopefully, they can keep the public from buying the 'bomb Iran' scenario. We shall see.

And another bad week for those who believe the earth was created in seven days by a magical sky fairy... yet another missing link has been found. This one is no fish with arms, though. It's a primate.

And a former Marine captain who served two tours in Iraq tells of his disillusionment and deception.

Where's Federal Agent Presley when you need him?

Read More...

Summary only...

Elvis and Tricky Dick

Ok, time for some silly stuff, from the Nixon archives (you know, that other really corrupt president that would still be a major improvement over what we have now)... This is the letter from Elvis to Nixon, in which, ironically enough, he is offering his services in fighting the 'drug culture'. He was asking Nixon about making him a federal agent. I'm not making this up! Look-

Dear Mr. President.

First, I would like to introduce myself. I am Elvis Presley and admire you and have great respect for your office. I talked to Vice President Agnew in Palm Springs three weeks ago and expressed my concern for our country. The drug culture, the hippie elements, the SDS, Black Panthers, etc. do NOT consider me as their enemy or as they call it The Establishment. I call it America and I love it. Sir, I can and will be of any service that I can to help The Country out. I have no concern or Motives other than helping the country out.

So I wish not to be given a title or an appointed position. I can and will do more good if I were made a Federal Agent at Large and I will help out by doing it my way through my communications with people of all ages. First and foremost, I am an entertainer, but all I need is the Federal credentials. I am on this plane with Senator George Murphy and we have been discussing the problems that our country is faced with.

Sir, I am staying at the Washington Hotel, Room 505-506-507. I have two men who work with me by the name of Jerry Schilling and Sonny West. I am registered under the name of Jon Burrows. I will be here for as long as long as it takes to get the credentials of a Federal Agent. I have done an in-depth study of drug abuse and Communist brainwashing techniques and I am right in the middle of the whole thing where I can and will do the most good.

I am Glad to help just so long as it is kept very Private. You can have your staff or whomever call me anytime today, tonight, or tomorrow. I was nominated this coming year one of America's Ten Most Outstanding Young Men. That will be in January 18 in my home town of Memphis, Tennessee. I am sending you the short autobiography about myself so you can better understand this approach. I would love to meet you just to say hello if you're not too busy.

Respectfully,
Elvis Presley

P. S. I believe that you, Sir, were one of the Top Ten Outstanding Men of America also.

I have a personal gift for you which I would like to present to you and you can accept it or I will keep it for you until you can take it.

The gifts Elvis referred to were some family photos and a Colt .45 pistol. Ah-uh-huh!

Read More...

Summary only...

Losing the military?

If one looks throughout history at dictatorships, political movements, whatever, there is one common factor: control of the military. In some cases, such as the Mexican Revolution, loyalties get divided, reducing the effectiveness. In the case of the Nazis, it is quite clear that the SS would not have been as effective without the military solidly behind Hitler. My point is, without solid support of the military, it is next to impossible over time to stay in power. I know, a no-brainer (any historians out there with good examples to refute this - please, by all means, post something in the comments).

There's been a lot of buzz about Sy Hersh's latest article in the New Yorker about how the Bush regime is planning on possibly using nuclear arms against Iran. I know, crazy. One of the things Hersh mentions is how many top-level people in the military are vehemently opposed to this, as they well should be.

Now, since this whole Iraq fiasco started, a common element seems to be the wanton disregard of experienced military opinions that don't fit in with the Bush plan. Former Central Command chiefs such as Anthony Zinni and Joe Hoar had their warnings about the folly of Iraq disregarded. Now a third has come to the fold. In an article in the Time magazine, retired Marine Lt. General Greg Newbold (another military brass-type whose warnings went unheeded - which also led him to retire) lets it all loose about the mistakes and the zealots who continue to push them He's no fan of Rumsfeld, either. A sampling:

"What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results."

Hear hear. He also encourages those officers still in the military to stand up and speak out:

" With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't—or don't have the opportunity to—speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important."

In an recent interview, Sy Hersh also pointed out that:

"[O]ne thing about our military, they’re very loyal to the president, but they’re getting to the edge. They’re getting to the edge with not only Rumsfeld, but with Cheney and the President."

And that makes me wonder: could there ever be a point where, although not a full-fledged military coup, that the military leaders and large groups of soldiers say 'Enough!" and resign or desert? It' s really tough for me to gauge military opinion, because although I know a lot of veterans, I don't know anyone currently serving in Iraq or a family member of someone who is. A quick dip on the web sends mixed messages. Here's something screwy... Zogby has a poll that shows that almost 90% of the troops think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11. The poll also states that just 1 in 5 want to heed Bush's call 'to stay as long as needed'.
Is it cognitive dissonance? Are they still feeding the troops a line of shit? Who knows?
If you peruse the Stars and Stripes military paper, you see a wide range of opinions in there. Expectedly, many are in support of the war. Unflinching, unquestioning. Yet every now and then you see a soldier who's had it. My question is, is the U.S. military capable, through insurrection or whatever, able to put an end to this lunacy? Hersh's article even says that if nuking Iran stays on the tables, there are many military brass ready to resign.
I asked my dad if there was anything similar to this in 'Nam. He said it was quite a different ballgame back then. Plus he was over there in '65, before public opinion had shifted against it. What do you think?

Read More...

Summary only...

'Maybe if I just put my fingers in my ears and go 'lalalala' , I won't hear you...'

Quick idiot watch report, from wacko Waco, TX.

Bill Nye, 'The Science Guy' was giving a speech at the local community college, as part of their 'distinguished lecturer' series. He talked about a wide variety of topics such as Mars exploration, global warming, etc. and then...

"The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.

“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children."

After pasting in the above quote, I sat here for a minute to think of some snarky sarcastic thing to say to illustrate the sheer idiocy on display here, but I think it speaks for itself. You can catch the article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Missing Link...

No, it's not a story about the origins of our president.. something way better. The New York Times is reporting that scientists have found the fossil remains of a 375 million year old fish. Ok, you say, they find fossils all the time. Here's what's special about this one:

"In two reports today in the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago say they have uncovered several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish in sediments of former streambeds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole.

The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.

In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods."

Here's the best part (for me, anyways):

"Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory."

Now, as far as transitional fossils, we already have archaeopteryx, a bird-like creature with reptilian features. Since that doesn't fit in with the creation scientist's viewpoint, it has been dismissed by creationists. How many more transitional fossils will it take? Have a look at that creation science link to get an idea of the stunning lack of logic and critical thinking we're dealing with. And then remember that this mindset is dicatating much of American policy right now. Scared yet?

As a side note, I want to make clear that snarkiness aside, I do find great value in this discovery, not just as another stick in the eye of the creationists, but as an important discovery in the realms of understanding the origins of life here on our planet. I am in awe of it. And the fish thing looks really cool, too. Nothing I'd want to get chased by while mountain biking down by the river.

Read More...

Summary only...

Had enough? Time for a laugh...

Ok, enough ranting. Have a look at this. It's an interesting perspective, shall we say, of some of the pictures on a new gov't website designed to keep up the scare tactics. Enjoy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Whose oil?

Found this on Yahoo News, entitled "Venezuela Takes on Exxon Mobil in Oil Play". It tells how the Venezuelan government is telling Exxon-Mobil that they need to share more of their revenues with the state or get the hell out. Bravo! Now, I am intrigued by the whole Hugo Chavez phenomenon. I try to be objective, but when corporate America and our current government continually demonizes this guy, I suspect he must be doing something right.
Now, part of the problem with us on the left is that some of us are inclined to fawn over revolutionaries just because they are revolutionaries. How many alt-coffee house types have you seen with a Che Guevara shirt? How many of them are aware of his Stalinistic tendencies and how many deaths he is responsible for? Or how many fawn over Castro while ignoring his abysmal human rights record (Jenni had a teacher who was like this once)? Just because our government is opposed to someone doesn't necessarily discredit the notion they are proposing. Sometimes there is the case of the gov't opposing the person for its own motives, yet there is also some truth to it, independent of the motives. Like Castro.. our gov't opposes him for reasons of pride and ideology, yet it is true that he is a totalitarian dictator with an abysmal human rights record. Now, it may sound like I'm contradicting what I said about Chavez in the first paragraph, I just want us to be aware of it.
Apparently, one of the reasons Chavez is so popular with his people is that he is committed to using the country's oil-rich revenues to help alleviate poverty. According to an article in the St. Petersburg Times,

"Under Chavez, the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA spent more than $3.7-billion last year on social and agricultural programs, housing and other projects - about a third of its earnings.

Chavez has promised to keep up the spending.

The state oil company is paying to build medical clinics and support government "missions," ranging from adult education programs to state-run markets. The government says oil money helped build 15,000 homes for the poor in 2004, and 120,000 more are planned.

Across the country, oil proceeds are flowing to about 130 centers with agricultural and industrial cooperatives. One center, built at an abandoned fuel depot in Caracas, has a sign over the gate that reads, "Venezuela: Now It Belongs to Everyone." It includes a farming cooperative, shoe factory and textile plant."

Now of course there are those that see this as a colossal mistake, and argue that things have not improved, with unemployment still hovering at 14 percent. I'm not sure what to believe.
Now, my point of this is not to support or demonize Chavez. I really don't have enough information to make that judgement. But it begs the question...when it comes to our nation's natural resources, who should benefit the most from them, the citizens of the country, or the company who spends the money to extract and process them?

This is not an easy question to answer. The United States leases mining and oil rights for ridiculously low costs to the companies. Throw in all of the crazy tax breaks and subsidies, and it seems to be quite a sweetheart deal for the companies. Combine that with the loosening of environmental regulations and regulatory processes, underpayment of royalties, and you really are left wondering who these resources belong to. To make matters worse, our gov't is ready to give away another $7 billion dollars in royalty 'relief'. And we're also gonna have $3.00+ a gallon gas again very shortly.

Now before you bite my head off for what I am about to say, I want it to be clear that I am disgusted by this nation's addiction to oil. I feel that these tax breaks and subsidies given to Big Oil should be redirected to the mainstream development of non-polluting, renewable energy production. That said, I am not an idealist who thinks we should do nothing about our current oil system; it is what is the norm, so, lacking the ideal, we should still work towards getting the maximum benefit out of the current sytem until we get our better one in place.

Now, admittedly not knowing much about economics or oil production, for that matter, my gut is telling me that our oil policy should be based in maximizing the profit to all Americans. We should be making the most money off of this, not Exxon Mobil. Hell, it could pay for healthcare. Or if our windfall of profit from extraction on federal lands actually went back into federal lands, our parks and forest wouldn't be in such a state of disrepair. Better yet, use that money to get the new, above-mentioned sustainable energy infrastructure in place. Call it some kind of socialism, I don't give a shit. It makes sense and puts the common good above corporate good, which, contrary to what we're always led to believe, are not the same thing.

Although quite heavy in the statistics, Greenpeace has a report here from a few years ago detailing costs, subsidies, tax breaks, and potential solutions. Some of the great ideas include:

-Include subsidy reform as an integral element in strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate change
-Decouple oil subsidies from rural economic development
-Internalize oil-related defense costs into market prices

Another idea is the idea of a 'federal oil trust'. For a take on this, read this here from Raymond J. Learsy. Learsy:

"The profits from the national oil trust's enterprise would ideally go to funding alternative fuel programs, mass transportation, hydrogen technology, hybrid car credits and whatever would help us distance ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. After all, these natural resources are part of the heritage that belongs to all Americans, and the benefits from their development should flow to us, not just to the oil patch and their "K Street" hires.

A federal oil trust would not be unique in concept nor experience. It could be patterned on the successful Tennessee Valley Authority, which was created by Congress in 1933, at another time of national crisis, to develop the Tennessee River system. The TVA, an independent government corporation was founded to promote navigation of inland waterways, to control flood waters of the Tennessee River by building dams, generating electricity which was made available to the region at affordable prices. It gave an enormous boost to the economies of the seven states bordering the Tennessee River Basin, which in the years of the TVA's founding were the most disadvantaged in the nation.

While promoting the development of alternative fuels the national oil trust could fund the development of both an economically viable and environmentally sound program to unlock the more than one trillion barrels of petroleum (according to the U.S. Department of Energy) in the oil shale deposits of the Western United States (deposits greater than those acknowledged by Saudi Arabia by a factor of at least four). Here is a project that would be a worthy challenge to American ingenuity whose successful solution would accord us full energy independence, regain our self respect and permit us to conduct our national and foreign affairs free of the threats our oil dependency engenders."

I'm sure Bushco. would love that one. Once again, in a perfect world, we would be already well into the age of clean, renewable resources. But I live with one foot in the world we have, not both feet in the world we'd like to (read my last post for more on that). Whatdya all think?

Read More...

Summary only...