'We have to make other arrangements': Kuntsler in Wash Post

James Howard Kunstler has written one of the most prescient accounts of what the global energy crisis actually means: an historic reversal of commodity chains and consumption patterns.
This is the stark reality of runaway energy prices coupled with the popular aversion toward modifying the so-called "American way."
Don't think for a moment that a few tweaks here and there to our way of life is going to change a crisis on a global scale.
This is not a crisis we can isolate.
Read this editorial and maybe even check out the book:

Wake Up, America. We're Driving Toward Disaster.

By James Howard Kunstler
Sunday, May 25, 2008; B03

Everywhere I go these days, talking about the global energy predicament on the college lecture circuit or at environmental conferences, I hear an increasingly shrill cry for "solutions." This is just another symptom of the delusional thinking that now grips the nation, especially among the educated and well-intentioned.

I say this because I detect in this strident plea the desperate wish to keep our "Happy Motoring" utopia running by means other than oil and its byproducts. But the truth is that no combination of solar, wind and nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used French-fry oil will allow us to power Wal-Mart, Disney World and the interstate highway system -- or even a fraction of these things -- in the future. We have to make other arrangements.

The public, and especially the mainstream media, misunderstands the "peak oil" story. It's not about running out of oil. It's about the instabilities that will shake the complex systems of daily life as soon as the global demand for oil exceeds the global supply. These systems can be listed concisely:

The way we produce food

The way we conduct commerce and trade

The way we travel

The way we occupy the land

The way we acquire and spend capital

And there are others: governance, health care, education and more.

As the world passes the all-time oil production high and watches as the price of a barrel of oil busts another record, as it did last week, these systems will run into trouble. Instability in one sector will bleed into another. Shocks to the oil markets will hurt trucking, which will slow commerce and food distribution, manufacturing and the tourist industry in a chain of cascading effects. Problems in finance will squeeze any enterprise that requires capital, including oil exploration and production, as well as government spending. These systems are all interrelated. They all face a crisis. What's more, the stress induced by the failure of these systems will only increase the wishful thinking across our nation.

And that's the worst part of our quandary: the American public's narrow focus on keeping all our cars running at any cost. Even the environmental community is hung up on this. The Rocky Mountain Institute has been pushing for the development of a "Hypercar" for years -- inadvertently promoting the idea that we really don't need to change.

Years ago, U.S. negotiators at a U.N. environmental conference told their interlocutors that the American lifestyle is "not up for negotiation." This stance is, unfortunately, related to two pernicious beliefs that have become common in the United States in recent decades. The first is the idea that when you wish upon a star, your dreams come true. (Oprah Winfrey advanced this notion last year with her promotion of a pop book called "The Secret," which said, in effect, that if you wish hard enough for something, it will come to you.) One of the basic differences between a child and an adult is the ability to know the difference between wishing for things and actually making them happen through earnest effort.

The companion belief to "wishing upon a star" is the idea that one can get something for nothing. This derives from America's new favorite religion: not evangelical Christianity but the worship of unearned riches. (The holy shrine to this tragic belief is Las Vegas.) When you combine these two beliefs, the result is the notion that when you wish upon a star, you'll get something for nothing. This is what underlies our current fantasy, as well as our inability to respond intelligently to the energy crisis.

These beliefs also explain why the presidential campaign is devoid of meaningful discussion about our energy predicament and its implications. The idea that we can become "energy independent" and maintain our current lifestyle is absurd. So is the gas-tax holiday. (Which politician wants to tell voters on Labor Day that the holiday is over?) The pie-in-the-sky plan to turn grain into fuel came to grief, too, when we saw its disruptive effect on global grain prices and the food shortages around the world, even in the United States. In recent weeks, the rice and cooking-oil shelves in my upstate New York supermarket have been stripped clean.

So what are intelligent responses to our predicament? First, we'll have to dramatically reorganize the everyday activities of American life. We'll have to grow our food closer to home, in a manner that will require more human attention. In fact, agriculture needs to return to the center of economic life. We'll have to restore local economic networks -- the very networks that the big-box stores systematically destroyed -- made of fine-grained layers of wholesalers, middlemen and retailers.

We'll also have to occupy the landscape differently, in traditional towns, villages and small cities. Our giant metroplexes are not going to make it, and the successful places will be ones that encourage local farming.

Fixing the U.S. passenger railroad system is probably the one project we could undertake right away that would have the greatest impact on the country's oil consumption. The fact that we're not talking about it -- especially in the presidential campaign -- shows how confused we are. The airline industry is disintegrating under the enormous pressure of fuel costs. Airlines cannot fire any more employees and have already offloaded their pension obligations and outsourced their repairs. At least five small airlines have filed for bankruptcy protection in the past two months. If we don't get the passenger trains running again, Americans will be going nowhere five years from now.

We don't have time to be crybabies about this. The talk on the presidential campaign trail about "hope" has its purpose. We cannot afford to remain befuddled and demoralized. But we must understand that hope is not something applied externally. Real hope resides within us. We generate it -- by proving that we are competent, earnest individuals who can discern between wishing and doing, who don't figure on getting something for nothing and who can be honest about the way the universe really works.

James Howard Kunstler is the author, most recently, of "World Made by Hand," a novel about America's post-oil future.

In Memoriam: Losing sight of the day, remembering the victims

It's a little more difficult in America these days to get caught up in "glory, glory, Hallelujah" wartime fanfare; there's so little of it left. Many Americans, one might say most, are somewhat weary of war and all that accompanies it.
Call it war fatigue.
This could explain our newfound relative lack of fervor surrounding national holidays like Memorial Day.
But upon further review, I think there is more to it.
To America's younger generations, "foreign" not only describes war's theater but its character as well.
The vast majority of Americans under 40, and I fall into this category, don't really understand wartime sacrifice like my Grandparents' generation.
Over the years I have taken note, on numerous occasions, of a simple little phrase used by older folks to describe World War II: "I lived through World War II," I've heard them say.
What does that mean to someone like me? In 40 years will I talk about "living through" two wars against Iraq?
Of course not.
Our wars against Iraq are foreign wars, to be sure, but so was World War II--a world-historic war that was fought primarily in Western Europe and the Far East.
The difference, of course, is reflected in the level of individual sacrifice commanded of those of us who stay "in the rear with the gear" as the old military saying goes.
The generation dubbed as "greatest" by Tom Brokaw (the WWII generation) deserves just such a moniker because of the sacrfice of its people, fighting men and women alongside citizen soldiers.
My generation is every bit as enlightened as it is insulated; we gather around grills instead of graves on this day.
Memorial Day just isn't what it used to be. Only a few short decades ago this day was one to remember the sacrifices of American military men and women who fought in wars both foreign and domestic.
It was strictly a day for remembrance and celebration.
All that has changed, of course; these days many Americans couldn't tell you the difference either in time or in significance of Labor Day as opposed to Memorial Day.
I'm not much different, of course, as a product of my environment. I've never celebrated Memorial Day in any substantial way.
And I have also never been called upon to sacrifice for my country, nor have I volunteered.
The casualty, then, is the devotion bred from sacrifice.


Remember the victims
We are certainly not alone in our willingness to celebrate victories with blind eyes toward the costs of winning them. And while it might not fit some people's narrow-minded definition of what it means to be patriotic, I think it's imporant to remember the innocent lives lost in what Robert McNamara has taken to calling "the fog of war."
Think for a moment that during World War II 100,000 people were burned to death in one night during the firebombing of Japan's major cities. This is in addition to the more than 210,000 people who were vaporized in the first and only two nuclear strikes (Hiroshima and Nagaski, Japan) in world history. Common Japanese citizens made the ultimate sacrifice and had no choice in the matter.
Remember them.
Curtis Lemay, the Air Force General who commanded troops in the Pacific Theater during World War II, admitted after the war that if the United States had lost he (among others) would have been tried as war criminals.
Remember that.
I recently watched a moving documentary that told the stories of numerous survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan entitled, "White Light, Black Rain."
I listened to firsthand accounts of living through a nuclear strike alongside admissions of young people living in Hiroshima that they didn't even know what happened on August 6, 1945, in their city.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana

War by the numbers

Take some time to read through these listings of 20th century wartime death tolls sorted by conflict:

Farm bill ensures lots of green

America takes care of its farmers.
Just in my lifetime American farmers have been paid to produce more and, at times, to produce nothing at all.
It is a truism that supercedes reality.
Two summers ago there was a report in the Washington Post about farm subsidies being doled out to non-farmers--people who live on land formerly used for farming.
It went on to explain that even landowners who did farm did not have to grow the crop the subsidy was intended for, or any crop at all.
It seems that farm subsidies are quite a windfall for some.

The payments now account for nearly half of the nation's expanding agricultural subsidy system, a complex web that has little basis in fairness or efficiency. What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.
--Washington Post (July 2, 2006)

And now we have the controverial $307 billion farm bill which, at least on the surface, subsidizes farmers on both ends of the wealth spectrum.
And to answer the question, "who counts as rich?", I offer this: pretty much no one.
Here's an excerpt from the report in today's Christian Science Monitor:

Washington - At the heart of the standoff between the White House and Congress over a $307 billion farm bill is the question: Should taxpayers subsidize rich farmers – and who counts as rich?

What income levels qualify – or disqualify – Americans from federal aid programs has figured in several clashes between the Bush administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

The farm bill on the way to the president's desk this week limits eligibility for farm subsidies to individuals with an adjusted gross farm income of less than $750,000; $1.5 million for couples. That's down from the $2.5 million for couples under current law, but President Bush wants the eligibility cap for farm subsidies to be much lower: $200,000.

"At a time of record farm income, Congress chose to .... require the American taxpayers to subsidize the incomes of married farmers already earning up to $1.5 million per year and expand government control over farm programs," said the White House in a statement Thursday.

The farm bill passed both the House and Senate last week with veto-proof majorities, 81 to 15 in the Senate and 318 to 106 in the House. The bill cuts traditional crop insurance programs by $3.8 billion and authorizes a $10.3 billion increase in nutrition programs.

This bill was vetoed by President Bush today, but you can rest assured that it will be overturned.

First TOKM, now Barack...

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama address a mob scene in Portland, Oregon this weekend with these words quoted in the New York Daily News:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

His words dovetail the spirit of my last entry. Americans no longer have the luxury of living in a superglobal bubble, where actions aren't accompanied by reactions. Obama will get hammered from the Right for this statement, which smacks of guardian class elitism. Even so, Obama is right on the money.
This is a different world; we are directly connected as human beings in almost every conceivable way. Things no long happen in a vacuum.

America: Take a look at yourself

It was with a great deal of glee that I read an article that made known the disdain many Indians have for being blamed for rising food prices.
In the International Herald Tribune, Heather Timmons writes about the popular chagrin that exists in India after the Bush Administration hoisted blame for the rise in the price of food in the United States.
It is the same old story, of course. The United States blames China and India for the precipitious rise in oil prices while saying nothing about our level of consumption--which, of course, dwarfs the consumption of any other country.
Now these newly industrialized economies are at fault for the higher cost of bread at Meijer.

Here is the gist of the article:

NEW DELHI: Instead of blaming India and other developing nations for the rise in food prices, Americans should rethink their energy policy and go on a diet, say a growing number of politicians, economists and academics here.
Criticism of the United States has ballooned in India recently, particularly after the Bush administration seemed to blame India's increasing middle class and prosperity for rising food prices. Critics from India seem to be asking one underlying question: "Why do Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians?"
The food problem has "clearly" been created by Americans, who are eating 50 percent more calories than the average person in India, said Pradeep Mehta, the secretary general of CUTS Center for International Trade, Economics and Environment, a private economic research organization based in India with offices in Kenya, Zambia, Vietnam and Britain.
If Americans were to slim down to even the middle-class weight in India, "many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates," Mehta said. The money Americans spend on liposuction to get rid of their excess fat could be funneled to famine victims instead, he added.

We Americans eat more, drink more, drive more, spend more, pollute more and blame more.
Now India is poking back at the United States with what amounts to a great line from an Eric Clapton song: before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.

Dennys' reputation for funky fare largely deserved

***This is the first in a bi-weekly series of restaurant reviews exclusive to TOKM***

For my first salvo into the rarefied air of restaurant reviews, I set my sights square on Saginaw Highway and Interstate 69 in Lansing--destination: Denny's.
This always-open full-service family diner chain has a reputation for somewhat less than fine dining and, as it turns out, it's a reputation that is largely deserved.
But, at the end of the day, where else can you go to soak up some Saturday night sobriety? (The preceding sentence neither promotes weekend drunkness nor Denny's as an antidote to it.)

Step up to the plate

After waiting 20 minutes to get so much as a look from the waitstaff, I made my intentions known: it was to be a Grand Slam with scrambled eggs, bacon, two pancakes and hash browns. The Grand Slam is the Burger King equivalent of the Whopper combo

The verdict

The eggs ran; the bacon tasted like peanut brittle minus the peanut taste normally associated with the best-known variety of brittle--in fairness they may have actually been "beggin' strips"; the center portions of my pancakes had the consistency of paper mache; the hash browns weren't bad, though I believe "fried potatoes" is the preferred nomenclature.
In fairness, however, it didn't take my Grand Slam long to round the bases. It was out of the kitchen and on my table in less than 10 minutes.

You have options, exercise them

I must tip my hat to Denny's for only closing its doors when it is mandated by law. It is, however, confounding to me that many are unaware of the fact that there are so many other options. Hitting up Denny's at four o'clock in the morning to take the edge off hunger pains of the early morning is one thing, but why go during regular business hours? You have options; exercise them.

Of course they do have WI-FI

More and more Denny's locations are getting wired for the internet, which does give the chain a bit of a boost. That being said, WI-FI is a little sketchy at their flagship Capital-area location. You cannot just login here; you have to get a network key from your waiter, a wireless code he or she will write down for you on the back of an old receipt. Once you get connected, search Google for the nearest IHOP location and get back behind the wheel.

Connect the dots

Since March of 2006, there have been no fewer than four shootings at Denny's locations in the United States. To borrow a phrase from the great Chris Rock, "I'm not saying it's right...but I understand."

Gas prices from around the world

Ok, I'll admit it: I was always that annoying guy who stood at the ready to pounce on anyone who moaned about the high price of gas in the United States--even when it was in the $1 to $2 range. It did seem high at the time, especially considering that in 2000 I purchased gas in northwest Indiana for just less than 70 cents.
"Go check the price of gas in Canada," I would say to the chagrined. "And when you're done, go look up Europe."
And now I have the proof in writing.
In America it's bad, but it could be a lot worse.
If you have the stomach for it, take a look at these gas prices across the globe measured in US dollars:

Gas prices from around the world (USA Today)

Gas prices on April 17 or 18. Data for EU countries were provided by the AA Motoring Trust.

United Kingdom $8.37

Netherlands $7.52

Norway $7.33

Belgium $6.95

Denmark $6.95

Germany $6.72

Portugal $6.65

Finland $6.57

France $6.50

Sweden $6.50

Hungary $5.63

Poland $5.63

Slovakia $5.59

Austria $5.40

Ireland $5.40

Slovenia $5.36

Switzerland $5.17

Spain $5.14

Czech Republic $5.10

Greece $4.91

Italy $4.80

Lithuania $4.72

Latvia $4.61

Estonia $4.30

Luxembourg $4.27

Japan $4.16

United States $2.88

Kazakhstan $2.75

Russia $2.68

Mexico $2.38

China $2.19

Nigeria $1.92

Saudi Arabia $0.45

Venezuela $0.19

The variables in play here that affect the disparate prices are as follows: Gas prices in welfare states, such as those in Western Europe (The Netherlands for example), are always going to be high because of runaway taxation on commodities like gasoline.
Countries in Latin America who trade with Venezuela (like Cuba, for instance) tend to pay less for gas. Venezuela sits on what some experts believe are the second largest oil reserves in the world and that is reflected in their unbelievably low price for a gallon of gas--that, coupled with the fact that Hugo Chavez's government nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela and can essentially set the price.
The OPEC countries of the Middle East (Venezuela also in OPEC) tend to pay very little for gas for many reasons, not the least of which being their proximity to the supply.

Yes he did: only an Obama collapse can save Hillary now

The party's over for Hillary, but she'll still be there in the morning.
After Barack Obama's easy victory in North Carolina Tuesday, Clinton's razor-slim victory in Indiana was effectively rendered inconsequential.
Unless he's seen casing a federal building with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers in the next few weeks, Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic presidential candidate this fall against John McCain.
All that being said, Hillary will not get out of the race until the last possible second. She will wait on one big Obama screw-up and, if indeed that unlikely scenario occurs, from there attempt to convince the Democractic superdelegates that she is their best choice against McCain.
And for an even more antagonistic view of Hillary's loitering, think for a minute how exactly she can get back the $11,400,000 she sunk into her campaign?
And so, she is here to stay.

Who will be Obama Veep?

I cannot envision a scenario in which Obama would bring Hillary (and by extension, Bill) into the White House--if, indeed, he wins--as Vice President. It has been an ugly, not to mention prolonged, race for the nomination and I just cannot imagine the two coexisting. Clinton/Obama could have worked; Obama/Clinton is just not in the cards.
Furthermore, Clinton would not have any more claim to power as VP when compared to her high profile junior senator from New York role in Washington. Clinton will just have to hope McCain defeats Obama in November, so she can make a run in 2012. After that, it will probably be too late.
In the end, I think Obama will choose Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas.

Handicapping the final two

John McCain

Strengths: War hero...reputation as straight talker...bipartisan record in the senate...crossover appeal could be reminiscent of Reagan Dems...strong on defense...high favorability ratings...gets kid-glove treatment from mass media...more qualified than any presidential candidate since Robert Dole.

Weaknesses: Not popular with the base of the Republican Party...would be oldest president in American History...represents state (AZ) that is already in the bag for the GOP...unapologetic Bush supporter..."stay the course in Iraq" mindset becoming less popular...wears the "inside the Beltway" tag...will appear practically impotent when compared to Obama.

Barack Obama

Strengths: Young and vibrant...most inspirational presidential candidate since JFK...his message is roundly positive...could be first African-American President of the United States...dos not have to defend a long record in the Senate...thoroughgoing critic of war in Iraq...advocate of sustainable foreign policy...he's not old and white.

Weaknesses: Relationships with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright will haunt him...short list of accomplishments in Senate...many Americans are still covertly predjudiced in their views of blacks and will not vote for him regardless...seems less inclined than most presidential candidates to dive into the mud...a sizeable number of Clinton primary voters appear poised to vote for McCain...his state, Illinois, is a Democratic stronghold.

En Vogue words: Here are two you may need to know

During this somewhat less than brief primary election cycle, two words have really caught my attention.
I'm a political junkie and a wordsmith, of sorts, so I know the use of "metrics" and "vetted" are something new within the political punditry.
It's fascinating to think that the use of these two words came to be en vogue among the pundits in such short order.
For me, a part-time cynic, the reason for their use is simple: high-minded types enjoy using words that their "common folk" cannot understand.
And so, to undercut their elitism, I offer this:

Metrics: These are merely standards of measurement like, for instance, tracking polls.

Example from Slate.com:"Anyway, it isn't completely true that the Clinton campaign no longer believes in arithmetic benchmarks. It would be more accurate to say that it no longer believes in the ones that matter. Clinton is still more than happy to sling irrelevant metrics."

Vetted: In this context, the term simply means "validated"--i.e. she has been around long enough to have been critiqued from every angle. She's a known quantity, essentially.

Example from newspaper in Durham, NC: "And despite Clinton's arguments that she has already been vetted, Obama suggested that a Republican opponent would be more likely to bring up past Clinton scandals that have been largely absent from the Democratic primary campaign."

If you don't read newspapers, just watch MSNBC, CNN or Fox News political coverage and I guarantee you will hear one of both of these terms more than once.

Update: Death toll may surpass 80,000 in Burma

According to Peter Lloyd, a correspondent for ABC News, deaths related to Cyclone Nargis may surpass 80,000.
And while the total number of deaths will, without doubt, continue to rise in the days to come, one must concede that Burma's failure to open up fully to foreign aid will inevitably cost more people their lives.
Here is the report from ABC News:

Kyi Minn is health adviser for World Vision in Burma and he says that on top of the 22,000 the military regime has admitted have died, there are another 60,000 missing - presumed dead.
ABC correspondent Peter Lloyd reports there are also indications that the massive aid effort is being hampered by a lack of organisation and infrastructure in Burma to distribute the urgently needed supplies.
The storm happened at the weekend, but the military junta's slowness to let international aid agencies in has meant that many devastated areas have still seen no help.
Agencies are still battling to get all the visas and permits they need to do their work in flooded and cyclone-ravaged towns and villages.
More details are emerging from Burma about the scale of death and destruction caused by cyclone Nargis.

The price of underdevelopment: Provisional death toll in Burma reaches 10,000

The tragic loss of life and property in Burma this weekend is a microcosm of a world of inequality. With thousands presumed to be dead and even more displaced, it leaves the mind to ponder why human beings, already poor and oppressed, must suffer through such horror. And while we know natural disasters like cyclones do not discriminate, they do have the unique characteristic of shedding light upon the aforementioned global inequality. Here is the latest dispatch from south Asia, where a cyclone recently ravaged what was already one of the poorest countries in the world.

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Myanmar's military government has a provisional death toll of 10,000 from this weekend's devastating cyclone, with another 3,000 missing, a diplomat said on Monday after a briefing from Foreign Minister Nyan Win.

"The basic message was that they believe the provisional death toll was about 10,000 with 3,000 missing," a diplomat present at the meeting told Reuters in Bangkok.

(Reporting by Ed Cropley; Editing by Darren Schuettler)

This is a tragedy of epic proportions. Just think for a moment about natural disasters. No country is immune to natural disasters in one form or another. Because of this, they have the capacity of separating the "haves" from the "have nots" with respect to this geopolitical/economic phenomenon we call development.
I remember being struck by the extent of the disaster wrought by the earthquake in 2003 that killed 15,000 people in southeastern Iran and thinking to myself: that could never happen here.
And again in 2004 when 350,000 people were killed as a result of a tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
That could never happen here.
And, I was basically right. Large-scale tragedies of natural origins have been all but made extinct in the more developed nations of the world--we cannot control the natural impulses of the globe, but we can (and do) prepare for the worst.
This is not to say that every country affected by the tsunami of 2004 was of the less developed variety, of course. But consider that in the hardest hit country, Indonesia (150,000 dead, 500,000 displaced), more than half of the population lives on less than two dollars per day.
Now consider that the costliest natural disaster in the history of the United States, in both lives and property, was Hurricane Katrina in 2005. More than 1,800 people lost their lives when storm surge from the Gulf of Mexico overcame New Orleans' outdated levee system (this is 1,200 fewer than the 3,000 pro-democracy demonstrators who were killed by the Burmese government in 1988).
Before Katrina, the most destructive hurricane was Andrew, which cost 65 people their lives back in 1992.
Andrew made landfall as a Category Five storm, with more powerful winds than the Cyclone that hit Burma.

Do the math
Of the events that are generally considered to be the top ten deadliest natural disasters to hit the United States since 1900 (these include forest fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, eruptions and blizzards) the combined death toll does not rise to the level of the 2003 Earthquake in Iran. Further, at roughly 14,000, it is only marginally higher than the death toll in Burma, which some experts believe will eventually rise well above 10,000.

Natural disaster uncovers man-made disaster

Burma, known to some as Myanmar, is another in a long line of failed authoritarian states. Controlled by the military, Burma has long been one of the poorest and most corrupt countries on the planet.
Its government has a track record of human rights abuses and, because of this, is shunned by the United States, Britain and many other western governments.
And so, even in the wake of such an immense tragedy, do not expect the Burmese government to accept a great deal of foreign aid (even from nations who do not recognize the authority of the military to rule Burma). The Burmese people will continue to suffer under a military regime that couldn't govern its way out of a wet paper sack.
Militaries, it seems, are best kept back in the barracks and are no substitute for liberal democracy.
Burma's economy is not diverse--its practically a single-commodity economy--and this fact will become all too evident as reports from the devastated "rice belt" region are made known.
Illicit drugs aside, Burma is as dependent upon rice as many of the old Banana Republics were on the potassium sticks.
This is a man-made disaster, in truth. Burma is practically a case study in the failure of military-led governments to care for the basic needs of citizens.
The vast majority of all developed countries are liberal democracies where tragedies are barely comparable.
Say a prayer for Burma.

What's better in sports than the Derby?

The simple answer is: probably nothing.
The Kentucky Derby is as good as it gets in sports. If you can stomach two hours of mind-numbing pomp coupled with screenshots of the most disgustingly opulent people on earth, you are in for two minutes of high drama.
This year's race was gut-wrenching to say the least.


Here is how ESPN's Pat Forde saw the race:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Thoroughbred racing at its best. Thoroughbred racing at its worst.
In a jarring matter of moments, the Kentucky Derby gave us both. It gave us an overpowering tour de force from Big Brown, stomping the competition despite inexperience and unfavorable post position. And it gave us a fatal injury after the race, when filly Eight Belles followed a sensational effort of her own to finish second by fracturing both ankles, falling to the track and being euthanized on the spot.
Brilliance and brittleness. Triumph and tragedy. A superstar performance and a ghastly postscript. It was an evening of violent mood swings at Churchill Downs.

And while Big Brown's performance in the final quarter mile was impressive, it pales in comparison to the performance of 50-1 underdog Giacomo in the 2005 Derby.
Check it out:

Gaseous expansion

The biggest single issue in the 2008 presidential election can be summed up in a word: economy. Within that broad subject is the hot-button issue of all economic issues: the price of a gallon of gas.
Between staged photo opportunities with the presidential candidates looking bewildered at the pumping process is the truth behind the high price of gas--in short, it is here to stay.
Historically the price of gas only gets higher during the summer months because of increases in demand. For people like me, in high-tax state like Michigan, this means that $4.00 per gallon gas is probably in our future.

Why the gaseous expansion?
The precipitious rise in the price of gas is, like nearly everything staked to the whim of world markets, directly connected to an uptick in the global demand for petroleum.
As demand in rapidly industrializing economies like India and China increases, the world oil supply has become strapped. And while there are numerous untapped oil reserves in both North and South America, it has become more difficult (and expensive) to tap into these reserves.
The United States, the world's largest consumer of oil, simply does not (and cannot in the long term) produce enough oil to sustain its own economy. As a consequence, Americans are stuck in the throes of a global market driven by consumers and speculators on the other side of the world.

What can we do about it?
Hillary Clinton's stump speech now includes a plan for a moratorium on the federal gas tax which, in the short term, would provide very little relief from the high price of gas. In fact, it could have the affect of creating a small surge in demand. Similarly, taxing the windfall profits of oil companies seems short-sighted as well.
What, then, is left for Americans to do? The simple answer is: not much. Americans must consume less oil but, since markets for oil are global in nature, even that would not make much of an impact.
Apart from tapping our own coastal reserves and those reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Americans must demand more investment in alternative fuels to wean our country off foreign oil.
This is a process that should have begun years ago, and I think we all know why that didn't happen.
And so, consume less or develop more are our only two courses of action.

Ranger dead in Afghanistan on seventh tour

This tragic story is almost too amazing to believe. Seven tours?

Printed in Editor & Publisher on Thursday:

NEW YORK An Army Ranger from Ramona, Ca., was killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday—on his seventh tour of duty in that country or in Iraq.

Sgt. 1st Class David L. McDowell, 30, died Tuesday in Bastion, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered in a firefight when enemy forces attacked using small arms fires, according to the Pentagon.

His father was also an Army ranger.

McDowell had been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq seven times and was a recipient of two Bronze stars and a Purple Heart. His most recent tour in Afghanistan began on March 29.

He is survived by his wife, his high school sweetheart, Joleen; son, Joshua, 11; daughter, Erin, 3; his parents; and two sisters.

BUSHCHENEYRUMSFELDRICE's failed foreign policy

This report on the success, or lack thereof, in the fight against global terrorism is startling to say the least.

Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri (pictured) are both still at-large and, it seems, no longer "on the run" as had been stated in the intervening years since September 11th, 2001.

The failure the Iraq policy and, in the larger context, the failed war on global terrorism will constitute President Bush's legacy.

From Matthew Lee, AP writer, dated today:

WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda has rebuilt some of its pre-Sept. 11, 2001, capabilities from remote hiding places in Pakistan, leading to a major spike in attacks last year in that country and neighboring Afghanistan, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

Attacks in Pakistan more than doubled from 375 to 887 between 2006 and 2007, and the number of fatalities jumped by almost 300 percent from 335 to 1,335, the State Department said in its annual terrorism report.

In Afghanistan, the number of attacks rose 16 percent, to 1,127 incidents last year, killing 1,966 people, 55 percent more than the 1,257 who died in 2006, it said.

The report said attacks in Iraq dipped slightly between 2006 and 2007, but they still accounted for 60 percent of worldwide terrorism fatalities.

More than 22,000 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2007, 8 percent more than in 2006, but the overall number of attacks fell, the report says.

The report identified Iran as the world's "most active" state sponsor of terrorism for supporting Palestinian extremists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it says elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps continued to give militants weapons, training and money.

"In this way, Iranian government forces have been responsible for attacks on coalition forces," State Department counterterrorism coordinator Dell Dailey told reporters.

About 13,600 noncombatants were killed in 2007 in Iraq, the report says, adding the high number could be attributed to a 50 percent increase in the number of suicide bombings. Iraqi suicide car bombings were up 40 percent, and suicide bombings outside of vehicles climbed 90 percent over 2006, it says.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain "the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners" despite ongoing efforts to combat followers of Osama bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, according to the report. It says Zawahiri has emerged as the terror group's "strategic and operational planner."

"It has reconstituted some of its pre-9/11 operational capabilities through the exploitation of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, replacement of captured or killed operational lieutenants, and the restoration of some central control by its top leadership, in particular Ayman al-Zawahiri," the report says.

What would "complete victory" look like?

What follows is an excerpt from a speech given by President Bush in September 2006. In it, he laundry lists all the successes of a "nation at war."

As you watch it, ask yourself this question: What would a victory look like, especially in light of six years of fighting to a draw?

A war against terrorism is a war without end.