Iraq prediction

So, in listening to all the presidential candidates -- or at least as many as I can stomach -- talk about what they would do about the Iraq situation, it occurred to me that the election is almost a year away, and the president-elect shan't take office until January 2009. I submit, then, that the best policy statement by any candidate would be to withdraw all troops (starting) immediately, because by January 2009, the situation shall be either so good that a military presence is irrelevant, or so bad that it is unsupportable. I personally suspect the latter, especially given Turkey's recent actions (which I had expected would happen when we left, not realizing that the PKK wouldn't wait that long), but I actually can't completely rule out the former, however improbable I consider it. But in either case, a new president probably shan't have any option other than complete withdrawal, even if Bush hasn't already started it before his term ends.

Energy V: My solution

Long after promised, but what's a deadline to a blogger? I'd like to say that I've been away so long because of the extra research I've been doing, but, well, that wouldn't be true. I've acquired new information about possible solutions, but my solution has remained more or less the same since I started doing this series (lo, these many months ago).

First, though, a quick review. In part I, I talked about how efficiency is often merely a matter of masking costs, and that evaluating energy sources requires consideration of all costs associated with that source (and, by extension, how nuclear fission is a pretty costly energy source); in part II, I talked about how hydrogen fuel cells represent an energy sink, energy therefrom ultimately being less than that required to put into it; in part III, I talked about how ethanol was similarly an energy sink, and also a threat to our food supply; and in part IV, I copped out and referred y'all to another source for discussions of the various energy alternatives out there.

What I would like to see in the U.S. over the rest of the century is the elimination of coal-fired and nuclear fission power plants, and their replacement with renewable forms that are applicable to the area: wind turbines in windy areas, solar panels in sunny areas, geothermal and deep geothermal in appropriate areas, wave turbines on the coasts, and probably natural gas in those areas where it was still most cost-effective. I would expect that the load on centralized power plants would decrease as more energy production was decentralized to businesses and homes: whether it's photovoltaic cells on roofs, neighborhood wind farms, or agricultural companies processing waste on site to produce combustible fuels. Transportation should be resolved through the use of batteries in land vehicles, synthetic liquid fuels in aviation and commercial shipping, and probably nuclear fission in naval vessels (the military has to be able to do things that are not cost-effective for the economy or society as a whole). Such would naturally lead to a decrease in carbon dioxide (and toxic byproducts of hydrocarbon combustion), as well as less demand on petroleum, natural sources of which I expect shall be depleted by the end of the century. Battery-powered cars and trucks would also cut back on noise, which is something of which I've become more and more conscious in my advancing age. Natural sources of petroleum are likely to be exhausted by the end of the century, so most "gas" will have to be synthetically produced anyway (and probably most used in military land vehicles), and plastics would be produced almost entirely synthetically, without a petroleum base, directly from other hydrocarbons. In short, I would expect to see as many alternative energy sources as possible, specifically tailored to smaller markets and the conditions in them.

My solution, however, has less to do with the energy alternatives than with government policy about energy, and for that I refer to part I. Government subsidizes various energy sources in large or small ways, distorting the economy and masking inefficiencies, so the first part would be to get government at all levels out of energy. The only exceptions to this would be possibly taking over the electrical infrastructure, and military/civilian government procurement and research. Another part to this solution, of course, would be to develop clearer rules for suing polluters for property and personal damage, which introduces a level of complexity I'm not ready to address here. So let's stick to removing tax breaks, direct grants, liability limitations and other government expenditures on all energy sources, perhaps gradually, but finally and quickly.

The immediate effect of this, of course, would be higher energy prices. One argument about subsidies in the first place (tax breaks, especially) is that they offset the cost of adhering to government regulation, but regulations regarding emissions and safety (for employees and surrounding property) represent a cost of the energy source, and should not be masked by offsets in the tax code. Similarly, there are some things that are too dangerous to do, and one way to reflect that is the cost of making the activity meet a certain level of safety. Another reflection is the cost of liability insurance, which provides the best mechanism for estimating the likelihood and severity of a bad outcome from an activity, so limiting the liability of coal or nuclear power plants at best lulls the public into a false sense of security, and more likely imposes hidden cost (through taxes or what-not) and an even greater cost in the future. Of course, all subsidies means tax breaks to individuals for buying fuel efficient cars and making energy efficient changes to their homes, but I'm not convinced that these tax breaks every initiated any such purchasing decisions, so their elimination is unlikely to make much difference.

But in that increase in prices would be included all the costs of an energy source, making it possible for energy utilities to make better-informed decisions about where to purchase power, as well as giving the consumer a better idea of the actual savings from making a given change to his home or vehicle. My expectation is that per watt-hour cost of nuclear, coal, and possibly natural gas would start to approach that of solar and wind, and make deep geothermal and wave turbines and such competitive -- but I could be wrong. There are so many estimates out there on the real or imagined cost of this or that energy source, which consider or ignore different factors, that it would be difficult to really assess the costs right now -- see, for example, this article. What is certain, however, is that fossil fuels shall become more costly, due to supply (v. demand) and the need to mitigate the environmental costs of their combustion. The advantage of getting government out of the business of picking winners in the energy market is that those winners shall emerge all by themselves, by being the least expensive and harmful (which, again, should equate to the same thing).

The costs would fall most heavily, of course, on those financially unable to make costly changes to their homes. This could be mitigated by offering such costly improvement (rooftop PV cells, for example) on a payment plan, rather than all at once -- or even leasing the equipment where possible. That's the problem for contractors and service providers, to make their product more viable in the market, rather than the state (which, by extension, is you and I). The energy needs of the poor could also be alleviated through charitable programs (like this one, to which I contribute annually) at the municipal and county levels. I recognize that economically strapped communities would make fewer contributions to such programs, but that's the way it is: an individual (or an energy utility, or a public or private corporation) can judge more accurately whether he can afford a given expenditure than a federal legislator.

I mentioned the energy infrastructure, and I have to concede that federal, or joint federal-state, action shall be necessary to repair, maintain, and modernize it. I think it is analogous to the interstate highway system, which required a massive investment to build, and continues to require maintenance. Perhaps the federal government should impose a kilowatt-hour tax, applying it (as gas taxes are for interstate highways) to research and implementation of broad-level improvements and repairs, and funding specific projects as grants to states. This would not be for energy production, but energy transmission: the towers and wires, or buried cable, or whatever infrastructure required to get energy from producers to consumers. There's still the potential for a bridge to nowhere, or a bridge that collapses due to unwise allocation at the state level, but this seems a legitimate ("necessary and proper") role for the federal government, and it would take the pressure (and expense) off the energy producers/providers and transfer it to the economy as a whole.

The economy has its own mechanisms for assessing cost and risk (such as bank loans and insurance policies) that are more fluid and adaptable (and arguably more accurate) than the inertial and arbitrary decisions of law makers. Individuals can also buy or rennovate products to mitigate cost to themselves or improve quality. But none of these mechanisms or individual judgements work if the costs for energy are spread and hidden. Our nation's energy crisis shall not be resolved through governmental action, which shall continue to pick winners based on political priorities rather than energy and financial priorities, but through the separate decisions of all Americans -- acting with appropriate information in hand.

Gitmo

So I've been away for a while -- note the change to my profile for one reason. Another is that Google kept $&*#ing up my user account. But this issue has pissed me off enough (and its coverage is brief enough) to spur me to action.

So, what's the debate about Guantanamo Bay? As I've said elsewhere, the Constitution is clearly best understood as proscribing the actions of the federal government: if it doesn't say the federal government can do something, the federal government can't do it. I've also pointed out that the Constitution doesn't specify, with regard to habeas corpus or the Bill of Rights, whether those rights apply to citizens or non-citizens, on U.S. soil or off it. That's because it's a restriction on federal government action, not a delineation (or proscription) of the rights of Americans.

Aside from the fact that, you know, it's the Constitution, the highest law in the land, there's also are good reasons not to play these semantic games. One is that it is the federal government that defines you as a citizen or a non-citizen, so to say that non-citizens have no civil rights, et al., is the same as saying that nobody has these rights: because all the federal government has to do to deprive you of due process is say you're not a citizen ("enemy combatant" anyone?). The other is that Americans travel, and there's no reason that the government couldn't wait until, say, you left the country to grab you and lock you away in the black hole of secret government prisons.

So no matter what the Supreme Court says, the detention without trial of prisoners at Guantanamo is a violation of the Constitution. No matter what legislation Congress tries to pass, the detention without trial of prisoners at Guantanamo is a violation of the Constitution. No matter what President Bush says -- well, you get the picture. The federal government can't detain individuals without proving that they have violated U.S. law according to due process, no matter who they are or where the detention takes place. At least until Congress and the state legislatures pass a Constitutional Amendment to change that fact, and when that happens, everyone can be a government detainee.

Non-binding resolutions: a refuge for the spineless

I may be kicking a dead horse by now, here, but I'm kind of annoyed by the Senate's non-binding resolution expressing disapproval for Bush's tactics for occupying Iraq. There are, after all, a number of things that our legislators could do to more effectively express their disapproval:

• Refuse to fund the additional troops. Deployment and combat pay cost more than the base pay our troops receive at home, and not funding those extra expenses would prevent the President from deploying the troops. Of course, this would require that Congress actually pay attention to how the Executive Branch is actually spending the money allocated to it (remember Iran-Contra?), and hold the President responsible for misallocation of funds. After all, the Congress is responsible for deciding how much to spend, and on what. It's no different than a hypothetical President taking money allocated for paying salaries of federal employees and using it to buy a yacht: the Executive Branch does not have the discretion to decide how to use money, but can only request funds for specified purposes from the Legislative Branch. If the President or the Administration decides to use it's own discretion on allocating funds, see the third option below.


• Repeal S.J. Res 23 and H.J. Res 114 from the 107th Congressional Session and replace them with actual and explicit authorization for the Executive Branch to impose a government on and maintain stability in Iraq -- or not. The President cannot carry out acts of war on his own discretion, but must have an explicit declaration of war to initiate such acts. I've said it before, but if S.J. Res 23 and H.J. Res 114 were actual declarations of war, Bush was violating the Constitution by not prosecuting that war in November 2002; if they weren't, he was violating the Constitution by prosecuting a war in March 2003. Even disregarding that, the assumptions made in the texts of the resolutions have all been proven false, requiring a reevaluation of those resolutions. If the President insists on using his discretion for initiating war, see the third option below.


• Debate articles of Impeachment for the abuse of Executive authority by Bush since 2002.

We don't pay Legislators to make themselves or us feel good: we hire them to pass laws that are demonstrably necessary and demonstrably effective in protecting individuals from the consequences of other individuals' actions -- and repeal laws that are no longer valid. Let them get their own blogs if they want to make statements: when Congress is in session, it's members should legislate.

Presti-Libby-tation

The Bush administration must be thrilled that Libby is being tried, and that the national debate centers on who outed Valerie Plame, because national attention has been effectively redirected from the question of why she was outed. It was a move worthy of Johnny Cochrane for the administration to dispute the question of who sent Wilson to Niger, rather than addressing his conclusions, and a move worthy of bovine quarupeds for the media to chase that issue rather than the Bush administration's evident deception.

So let's remember something: President Bush announced in his 2003 State of the Union Address that Iraq had tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, even though that assertion was based on a document from the Italian intelligence service that, by October 2002, the CIA didn't trust, the State Department had warned was a likely forgery, and Wilson had found implausible based on his research earlier in the year. Remeber also that the assertion had been removed from an earlier speech based on a warning from the CIA Director.

In fact, every piece of evidence that the Bush administration's members presented to the public on Iraqi WMDs-- Nigerian uranium, aluminum tubes, mobile chemical labs -- was known to have been discredited by the time Powell addressed the UN. Once these assertions were analyzed and debunked, one after another, there was no evidence left that Iraq posed any kind of threat to the United States, much less an imminent one.

Make no mistake: this was not a "failure of intelligence", but rather a deliberate misuse and distortion of intelligence by the Administration to push a policy that has created a crisis, diminished U.S. credibility worldwide, emboldened al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iran, and cost us a crapload of money and thousands of U.S. lives. Rather than Libby, it is Bush who should be on trial, in the Senate, for abusing his power in office.

Bush is a traitor.

Impeach him.

Energy IV: There's too many alternatives to count -- especially for Bush

I was going to use this post to describe the various alternative energy sources, having dismissed hydrogen and ethanol as viable replacements for gasoline, and having already pointed out the inherent inefficiency of nuclear fission, but there are a whole crapload: wind, solar, geothermal, hydrodynamic, hydrothermic, etc. There's also nuclear fusion, the energy source of the future, now and for always. I don't have the patience or the knowledge to do the panoply justice, so I'll leave it to this guy.

Part V coming up.

An open letter to journalists and politicians

I have just one request of you folks. When somebody justifies this or that action by the President by quoting the Constitution as saying that he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, please, please, please tell that person to finish the quote. The full quote, from Article II, section 2 is, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;".

I'll admit there's quibble room here. Ideologically, I would apply the dependent clause "when called. . . " to both the "Army and Navy . . ." and "the Militia . . .", but grammatically it is equally probable, or even moreso, that it applies only to "the Militia. . .".

Even granting the latter interpretation, it is clear that the National Guard (which constitutes the state militias of our day) cannot be called into service by the Executive Branch, but only by the Legislative Branch: absent a specific act of Congress, the President cannot command the National Guard.

I call on anyone reading this to cite the Congressional Act that has called the National Guard into actual service, because the only acts I have read actually "authorizing" the President to carry out hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have included such phrases as "as he deems necessary" -- yielding their authority to declare war or activate the National Guard to the Executive Branch, which the Constitution does not authorize Congress to do.

Politicians, you have sworn an oath the uphold and defend the Constitution, so you'd damned well better already know this -- and you'd damned well better start remembering the whole description of the Commander-in-Chief authority. Journalists, you're supposed to hold these jackasses to account, so you'd damned well better start challending folks who try to slide by with only the first part of the Article II, section 2.

The dead hand of history

Bummer for Steve Jobs, no?

Not about the investigation into post-dated stock options, because, well, that practice is tawdry.

I mean about his house.

Thomas Jefferson said it best: "Life belongs to the living." As might be inferred by my commentary on the estate tax, I don't think that the dead own property. History is a guide, not a straitjacket, and an individual's property rights must prevail over abstractions like ethnic heritage, community flavor, or historical significance.

After all, this house isn't the only example of Spanish Colonial archetecture: there must be enough examples to define the genre. There are also pictures, floor plans, and all manner of historical documentation to preserve the memory of the building if it were to disappear. Richard Moe should buy his own fucking house, and not presume to tell the owner of that house what to do with it. Clotilde Luce sold the fucking house, so she has no more say than the previous owners of any of y'all's houses. Virginia Gail Anderson didn't inherit the fucking house, so she has no more claim to the property than the heirs of the guy who built any of y'all's houses. If the community wants to preserve some sort of flavor, they should buy the fucking property from Jobs, at whatever price he asks, or shut the fuck up.

I am fortunate to live in a community that has no covenants, because a lot of communities in Colorado Springs do. On the broader question of community residents presuming to try to control property they do not, themselves, own . . . well, I guess I covered that. The only exception I would allow is restricting use of property that materially harms individuals, their property, or fair use of that property (like loud noise or bright lights that prevent other property owners from keeping their house quiet or dim) -- and offense of taste or sensibilities does not qualify, nor does some abstract notion of property value.

I mean, who out there would want some self-appointed authority to tell you whether or not you could modify your property as you desired?

Government negotiation, raising the price of medicine

So the day after I pick on Schwarzeneggar for trying to turn California into Canada, the U.S. House of Representatives votes to institute price controls on prescription drugs.

No, wait: they said "negotiate" on prices.

The federal government already negotiates with medical providers, as follows: the feds say they'll pay x, and if medical providers accept it, they charge that much -- to government-covered (that is, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) customers; to everyone else, the providers raise the price to make up the shortfall. If the providers don't accept that amount, they don't take government-covered customers.

For example, when I worked in social services in Indiana, the state issued new Medicaid cards to Medicaid recipients. Rather than simply verifying an identification number on a paper card, providers would have to acquire card-readers to read the magnetic stripe on the new cards. The result? Several of the individuals we served had to find new doctors, because their current ones didn't want the added expense and hassle of the card readers.

Anyhow, there are two ways this proposed "negotiation" would work. One would be to start limiting the choices of Medicare recipients as to the pharmaceutical products they could get on the taxpayer's tab. That's fine with me, because, hell, I'm the one paying for these folks. Alternately, and more likely, the government shall have to pay more than they want, if they want a broad-enough level of coverage for Medicare recipients. Meanwhile, private insurance companies may have a harder time keeping their own costs low, as pharmacies try to recoup lost profits by charging more to non-Medicare customers. And the uninsured? Well, they'll pay the most of all. This has, after all, been the practical effect of government price-setting through Medicare already: inflation in healthcare costs for everybody else. Extending this practice to drugs will make'em more pricey for everybody else. Not to mention that we're all stuck paying to subsidize these freeloaders to begin with.

I find myself in the welcome position of being able to set aside Bush-bashing by saying that I agree with his unwillingness to cause government to "negotiate" drug prices. Oops, out of position, because Bush is the $&*#ing moron who pushed and signed this ridiculous drug benefit to begin with. Sigh. I've said it all before.