Democracy in crisis

Voting is to a democracy what oxygen is to human life - essential! Low voter turnout and scheming by certain politicians to discourage or prevent voter registration is a telling sign that our democracy is diseased. Voting is the highest responsibility of a citizen in a democracy.

It is time for our government to demand its citizens get involved with their country. It is time people accepted that rights come with responsibilites! It is time for our government to strengthen our democracy by placing the proper emphasis on voting - essential!

US Strategic Petroleum Reserve

After the oil crisis in 1973, which brought the economies of the developed world to their knees, the US developed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to fend off another blow. The reserve holds about 700 million barrels of crude which provides about 53 days of import protections. Needless to say in a time of real crisis these supplies could be used to keep emergency services running for quite some time.

The reserve has been in the news quite a bit in the last 4-5 years. Every time oil prices spike there is a call to reduce them by tapping the reserve. The Clinton administration yielded these calls in 2000 and released oil from the reserve, in what appeared to also be a political move ahead of the presidential election.

I am in 100% agreement with the Bush administration on their refusal to tap the reserve last year even though there were some strong calls for it, especially from the Democrats. Here is the Bush administration stance on the issue.

"We've always said the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was set up to protect against physical disruptions of oil supplies such as national emergencies or natural disasters, and not to manipulate prices or for political purposes..."

Bravo!


Update: And the oil is going to flow. It seems up to 2 million barrels of oil will be loaned to major oil companies in the wake of huricane Ivan.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040924/bs_nm/energy_conoco_alliance_dc


References:
1. The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/index.html

1. U.S. Weighs Borrowing Oil From Stockpile - Tom Raum (AP)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_go_pr_wh/oil_reserve_3

3. US taps oil reserve - BBC News (2000)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/938146.stm
Note: BBC wrongly states that the capacity of the reserve is 1 billion barrels.

Iran developments get juicier

Iran's nuclear ambitions make for a fascinating crisis. The latest development is that Iran has openly admitted to starting the uranium enrichment process.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=11&u=/nm/20040921/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_83

Nuclear ambitions are like any other major international taboo subject - it's best kept in the dark. Iran doesn't have this option anymore as it is clear that they have a nuclear program in development. Still, one would expect them to pacify and stall the great powers while continuing their plans in secret. This would be the path of least resistance. Iran has chosen open confrontation.

Their strategy may backfire on them. Diplomatic finagling could've gone on for a while, perhaps even long enough for Iran to get closer to actually obtaining nuclear weapons at which point the game changes. And the big powers would've most likely played along. The US is bogged down in Iraq and is hardly ready for another go-it-alone adventure. The Europeans were quite satisfied with assurances provided by Iran last year that they would cease all activity.

Iran's admission is an invitation to open confrontation with the West. Is Iran trying to further divide US and Europe? Are they trying to provoke a larger conflict in the Middle East? Perhaps they are trying to divert their people's attention from internal conflicts that loom over Iran political system? Iranian press offers varying views on the situation with hard-liners and liberals (and everyone in between) taking expected positions. Nothing new here, but still an interesting read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3670412.stm

Whatever the reason for this admission it will be interesting to watch how western powers respond. I am especially curious to see what Israel will do, especially considering the mention of a possible US sale of 500 bunker-buster bombs to Israel. I am starting to understand now why the US keeps talking about Israel as an important ally. Out of own self-interest Israel will attack any nation that it perceives as a threat. This is an ideal situation for the US - we arm them, they do our dirty work.

Update: Needless to say, the current situation with Iran (as well as North Korea) poses a question on whether proliferation of nuclear weapons can be stopped. BBC News provides a decent summary of the issues surrounding this question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3680418.stm

Update2: Yup, Iran is definitely heating up. Here is an EXCELLENT op-ed piece by George F. Will from the Washington Post on the current situation with Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43384-2004Sep22.html

Neocon cabal

It's always good to know who is influencing policy. Here's a great breakdown from the CSM.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

They also have a great questionnaire (a bit more involved than a quiz) to find out where you stand. Some good questions here to get your mind working.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html

They pegged me as a liberal, but I think I'm a cross between a liberal and a realist according to their category breakdown.

I spent a good part of my Sunday reading about Neoconservativism and I'm tickled. Fundamentally I disagree with their vision as a whole, but I can see how it would be useful to have a neocon on any foreign policy planning board. In other words - I wouldn't leave them in charge of an empire, but would certainly take their input.

Here is a mission statement from one of their leading groups. Check out the list of names at the end - it's who's who in our current government. Pretty amazing!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

On the face of it it's pretty standard strong-arm, right-wing view of the world. The problems start to emerge once you start thinking about what some of those statements imply or might result in. Here is one of the more troubling points:

"we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

In other words screw the world. We will install new governments that are friendly to us, bully countries into trading with us on our own terms and democratize the world (as long as that doesn't conflict with previous two items). Basically, continue doing what we've been doing since WWII, perhaps a bit more openly. Pax Americana here we come!!

Useful torture?

Slate columnist Fred Kaplan explores the purported usefulness of torture in his latest article "Does Torture Work?" - http://slate.msn.com/id/2106702/. He proposes that it is time for a serious discussion on whether torture is actually useful and whether it should be allowed under certain circumstances.

Seeking finality on an issue is quite logical, especially in light of the Abu Ghraib scandal. Lack of a policy with clear rules and guidelines appears to be one of (if not) the major cause(s) for the despicable accounts carried on in that prison by the US military. The current administration relaxed these rules in order to make it easier to obtain information and thus legitimized certain kinds of torture. This opened a can of worms. If certain kinds of limited torture were legitimate and it was not made extremely clear to everyone what they were the situation becomes a perfect setup for actual torture to occur.

There are a number of reasons the U.S. (nor any other respectable country) cannot have a serious examination of torture. Most of these points can be summed up in one word - politics. Doing something in secret is one thing, but broadcasting it to the world is an entirely different matter.

Neighbor relations aside it is still an impossibility to carry on a real discussion on the merits of torture. The problem comes down to a basic self-defense mechanism built into people. The bottom line is that even the most ardent anti-torture activist would think twice if personally involved. The self-defense mechanism ultimately comes before ideals. There are certainly exceptions, but nature has a strong way of promoting the self-defense gene ahead of idealism.

A really easy way to examine this problem would be to ask the families of those affected by the 9/11 tragedy whether they would support torture in circumstances where it might prevent another 9/11 from happening. Another way to look at it would be to think whether we would support torture if the lives of our loved ones depended on it.

Our security aparatus applies the same logic when defending us from threats. We can all look away in disgust at what was done to those poor Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, but I don't think very many people would mind (especially not the ones who might have been affected) should a "little" torture happen in order to avoid another 9/11.

It is very easy to say that torture is ineffective due to the fact that under extreme duress people will confess to anything. This is where Mr. Kaplan raises a very interesting question - why has torture continued to be used for centuries if it is not an effective way of getting information?

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether torture is effective or not as long as there is belief that it could be. And let's face it... that belief is not going to go away. A person witholding information judged as important is increasingly more likely to be pressured to turn it over with every passing minute. As time passes the urgency increases and thus the pressure methods get more severe. Ultimately there is no way to avoid torture in these circumstances.

Sadly, as long as there is human conflict torture will remain a grim, unspoken reality. In order to reduce its occurence every government has an obligation to enact and promote strong anti-torture policies. The United States cannot be an exception and needs to immediately denounce torture and withdraw its legalese justification of the same. The State Department may otherwise have to place the US on its list of human rights abusers next year.

Out-of-this-world advice

MSN should probably be the last place one should seek level-headed advice. They seem to specialize in sensationalist titles and articles (that promise to solve all your problems) to attract and keep attention. So I guess I really shouldn't be surprised by the feast offered in their "Hot on Hotmail" feature today "Should you marry a fixer-upper?". Curiousity gets the better of me in certain occasions and I clicked the link. It ended up being a "Ask Ann Landers" type of column.

Ann Landers actually offered sensible advice to people, but of course sensibility would be too much to ask from MSN. A woman was torn between marrying a man who is kind and loving to her, but doesn't have very high aspirations in life. The advice offered to her by their resident "expert" Mama Gena was that men in general don't have aspirations and that they need a woman to push them to achieve.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but not only am I surprised I am also in disbelief. People turn to these kinds of forums when they have real problems they are not sure how to handle. This woman was trying to answer one of the biggest questions in life - how do you reconcile love with people you are in love with. In other words relationships are about compromises. She loved this guy, but when she started thinking about marriage she started considering what he would be like as a partner. Of course, this is where the big decision came in... does she marry someone she loves, but who possibly might not go very far in life. These kinds of decisions go into the very heart of who we are as human beings and they are heart and gut wrenching.

In light of this situation she was told that she should forge ahead and make this guy into what she wants him to be. UNBELIEVABLE!! What is even more unbelievable is that Mama Gena actually quoted Beauty and the Beast to support her argument (as the woman brought up the fact that her beau's physical attributes leave a bit to be desired) and then twisted the story to suit her argument by saying: "And it was through her love and training that he turned into a prince." Training? I don't remember Belle training the Beast. What would that look like? Are we talking S&M here?

If you ask me a lot of partnerships (marriages or not) suffer from unrealistic expectations and attempts to mold the partner according to those expectations. To actually promote this trend as a way to happiness and bliss is beyond unconscientious - it is morally criminal!

To do my part I wrote her the following email.

------------------------------
Dear Ms. Thomashauer,
I was somewhat appaled by your answer to "Dating Exterminator". This woman found herself stuck with one of the great decisions in life (choosing a partner) and you advised her to go unilaterally ahead and project her expectations onto this man. In my humble opinion that is certainly not the way to start a productive and successful partnership. Perhaps this man is happy being who he is and does not need a woman to direct him. The least you could do was to advise her to have an open conversation with him about her wants and needs as well as his. I think that would've been a lot more productive way of approaching her qualms.
I most certainly hope that you will consider the consequences of your actions and respond more wisely in the future.
Kind regards,
------------------------------

I will post here if and when I receive a response. If you agree with this entry I would encourage you to write her as well. Giving advice like that is dangerous in my opinion and it should be pointed out.

References:
1. Should I marry my guy? - Mama Gena
http://msn.match.com/msn/article.aspx?articleid=2557
2. Mama Gena's School of Womanly Arts
http://www.mamagenas.com/
"Trains men & women of all ages to use the power of pleasure to have their way with the world."
Alrighty then. Way to contribute Mama Gena to making this world a better place!

Inhalable alcohol is a very bad idea

Someone finally got around to inventing a better way to ingest alcohol - inhalation. I am usually quite fond of new inventions, but this one is a catastrophically bad idea. I give it two to three years max before it's banned.

The main concern here is that alcohol is an incredibly addicting substance. The fact that it takes quite a bit of time to get to our heads (due to ingestion through the stomach) is actually a good thing as the addictiveness is in effect reduced. By enabling an instantenous alcohol high there is a serious danger of widespread alcohol addiction.

I am against drug prohibition of any kind. Education is always superior to an outright ban. There is however a real danger here and in an absence of proper drug education (let's be real - this will not happen anytime soon) a ban on inhalable alcohol of any kind needs to take effect immediately.

References:
1. Vaporize Me - Amanda Schaffer
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106393/

2. Website for the AWOL alcohol vaporizer
http://www.awolmachine.com/