Short Current Essays

$4 Gallon Gasoline - A 2012 Petrogarch Primer

2012-02-23T07:04:00.000-07:00

Some Historical Relativity

Lubricated with a Little Crude Oil

Let's introduce this posting with a couple of paragraphs of our traditional MeanMesa conspiracy rambling. Since the Citizens United decision about a year ago, American oligarchs are effortlessly reaching into their bulging purses to indulge themselves in all sorts of, happily, unpopular personal political vendettas, weird, unfulfilled childhood baggage and a veritable "spring bouquet" of various tragic wet dreams of a "Paladin-esque" ascent to historical relevance and foreign policy glory.

The GOPCon owners have opined about re-invading Iraq to correct mistakes in the distribution of her stolen oil, bombing Iran in the interests of Israel's participation in a modern reinvention of the Revelations myth and delivering the final "stake through the heart" to the dirty, ungrateful remnants of Martin Luther's Papist heresy. One of the more recent examples is found in the tantrum of Texas refinery billionaires with the President's decision not to hand over the Keystone XL petro-"cash cow" for conversion into "well deserved" profits.

That "billionaires' tantrum" has now materialized. We see the dust from the petrogarchs' approaching troops on the horizon, and, as usual, they are headed for the gas pump price meters.

Petrogarchs' 2012 Battle Plan

Destroy the Recovery, Destroy the Economy and Destroy Obama

It may be hard to imagine anyone beyond the bullet hungry Generals who is actually looking at the prospect of war with Iran fondly, but keep looking. There was a minor "tit for tat" between just such folks and the President which revealed other, perhaps even more dangerous, anti-democracy players.

Since it's a "new word," MeanMesa will make the predictable pitch for contextural validity.

Petrogarch (noun, common usage)

(adj.) petrogarchic

(adv.) petrogarchically

A particularly vicious, special type of oligarch who has extracted most of his wealth from either non-competitive, price fixed petroleum production and sales, petroleum futures speculation or federal petroleum subsidies. There are very few reported female petrogarchs.

The "candy on the table" was Presidential approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project designed to bring Canadian tar sands oil across the country to refineries in Texas. This may not sound so terribly arcane, but there are a few facts which must be added for the discussion.

1. This year the largest export commodity from the United States will be refined petroleum products -- specifically gasoline and diesel fuel. (read more)

2. Oil derived from tar sands is perhaps the most caustic and toxic form of crude oil. (The best form of crude oil is called "sweet, light crude," i.e. Saudi Arabian or Iraqi crude oil.) (read more)

3. The Keystone Project would not be a significant jobs producer either during its construction -- 3,000 to 5,000 temporary jobs for 2 years -- or during its operational life -- 2,000 jobs. (read more)

4. The gasoline product refined from the tar sands oil in Texas would not mitigate US dependence on imported oil. Refinery output is scheduled for direct trans-shipment to Central and South American buyers. (read more)

5. The main, administrative obstacle cited in the President's refusal to authorize the project is derived from its very questionable, incomplete environmental impact investigation. Keystone proponents demanded immediate EPA approval. The proposed route of the pipeline crosses the major Ogallala Aquifer in the US agricultural state of Nebraska. (read more)

6. An average American family pays $600 per year to futures speculators in the oil "market," a tender career opportunity held close and dear by its obscenely rich owners. (read more)

7. The US oil market is not driven by supply and demand, hence its victims never enjoy the now totally mythical prospect of a price reflecting any sort of supply and demand "market correction." Because of this, gasoline prices are largely based on arbitrary decisions made by petrogarchs and speculators for any reason they wish. (read more)

8. High gasoline prices can become a political "dog whistle" to uninformed consumers, "re-grooved" by the petrogarchs' "wholly owned media" to become the responsibility of an incumbent President if that is what is desired. (read more)

So, Let's take a Look at Our Petrogarch Primer

Item One

from OilChange International

(See the article here )

Big Oil Threatens President Obama

Steve Kretzmann

American Petroleum Institute President, Jack Gerard

By Brendan Demelle, DeSmogBlog

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard today announced the oil and gas industry’s latest election-year scare campaign to threaten the demise of the U.S. economy unless Big Oil gets its every wish in Washington.

This year the wish list includes approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, expanded offshore drilling on both coasts, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more federal lands in the West to drilling, and smaller buffer zones between drilling operations and drinking water supplies.

What if Washington doesn’t comply by delivering Keystone XL and the rest of the wish list? Gerard, the oil industry’s chief bully, threatens “huge political consequences” for Barack Obama.

You can almost set your watch to this industry’s tired plays on this front. If it’s January of a presidential election year, it must be time for the oil industry to threaten Washington politicians to ensure they continue to do the industry’s bidding. The threats are delivered in the form of outlandishly expensive advertising campaigns and punditry tours, aided by a captive media that serves its role as stenographer for the industry’s inflated jobs figures and misleading claims.

The API campaign is nothing more than a fresh skin on a very old and stale argument – that President ______ (insert current name) needs to continue opening up more of the nation’s lands, particularly public lands, for oil and gas drilling, OR ELSE ______(insert latest political talking point), in this case “jobs jobs jobs” will be lost (a bogus argument).

CNN notes the close correlation between API’s target states and some of the hottest states in the 2012 U.S. elections – hint: they’re the same.

Gerard said it is not intended to be an advertisement or promote one party or candidate over the another, but rather a “conversation” to “help Americans understand what’s at stake.” While the campaign will run nationwide, it will focus heavily on states where Gerard said energy is an important issue — including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Those states also happen to be important battle ground states in the upcoming election.

In his inanely named “State of American Energy” address, Gerard threatened:

“Clearly, the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest. A determination to decide anything less than that I believe will have huge political consequences.”

Like what Mr. Gerard? Your industry isn’t going to lend as much financial support to Democrats this year as it will to Republicans? Surprise, surprise…surprise.

The oil-soaked GOP is doing cartwheels over their supposed ‘victory’ in forcing Obama to decide on Keystone XL within 60 days, although many environmentalists predict the bullying to backfire. But House Republicans won’t let reality stand in the way of a good circus stunt.

The Hill reports:

House Republicans are putting more pressure on President Obama to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, unveiling a [countdown] clock that counts the number of days since the president signed legislation requiring a speedy verdict on the project.

How about putting that clock next to a ticker showing the oil industry money flowing into Congressional campaign coffers? That would be a sight!

Also during his statement today, Jack Gerard asked rhetorically, “Why would we import a product we can produce at home?”

But Jack, why not answer the real question: If Big Oil is sincerely interested in domestic energy security and low-cost gasoline for Americans, why would your industry be clamoring feverishly to maximize U.S. oil and gas export infrastructure that would send our ‘homegrown’ oil and gas overseas to Asian and European markets – raising American gas prices yet higher?

Greenpeace launched its own Vote 4 Energy site mocking the API’s claims that its ads feature “ordinary Americans” and releasing a hilarious spoof video.

“When’s the last time someone got hired to clean up a solar spill?” asks an actor playing an ordinary American in the Greenpeace spoof. “Oh no, I’ve got sunlight all over me.”

Touché!

Greenpeace said in a statement:

“The Vote 4 Energy campaign is the latest effort by the oil industry to fake citizen support for its agenda. The American Petroleum Institute has repeatedly spent millions to block clean energy solutions and fake grassroots support for Big Oil.”

While API [American Petroleum Institute] says its new ads are designed to feature only “ordinary Americans” expressing their thoughts on energy, in reality the industry’s ad agency carefully handpicks people to read from a script. In other words, it is pure astroturfing.

Recall that API ad producers kicked out several people who wouldn’t agree to read the script provided by API, and instead insisted on expressing their own beliefs, as they had been led to believe they could buy the API ad team’s outreach ad, which stated:

… “the ONLY qualifications” listed on the e-mail: “You are willing to go on camera and state your beliefs.”

Another is: “You are comfortable portraying YOURSELF! They want REAL PEOPLE not Actors!”

API won’t reveal how much money it is spending on the astroturf ad campaigns that will continue throughout this election year. But it will likely rival or surpass what API spent on its 2010 election year ads – roughly $40 million.

That’s a lot of job-creating money! Too bad it’s going into bullying ads instead of supporting “ordinary Americans” who need work.

Item Two

from Huffington Post

(see the article here)

American Petroleum Institute

To Begin Direct Political Donations

The Huffington Post Joanna Zelman First Posted: 02/24/11 05:42 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

One of the biggest oil lobbying organizations now plans to directly back political candidates.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) -- the main U.S. trade association for the oil and gas industry -- recently announced that beginning in the second quarter of this year, it will take a turn towards direct political donations. API, who has companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron among its 400 members, spent about $7 million last year on lobbying efforts alone.

One of the greatest concerns, as Think Progress reports, is that API runs committees that set oil industry standards. The commission investigating the BP oil spill reported that API was in too compromising a position to set the standards -- the institute resists improving safety rules due to concerns over the costs. API's Martin Durbin admits to Bloomberg News, "At the end of the day, our mission is trying to influence the policy debate."

Now, the institute will take direct aim at political candidates. Most of these candidates are expected to be Republican, as oil-supported action committees tend to support the Republican party. Last year, the Independent Petroleum Association of America gave 77 percent of their contributions to the Republican party. Bloomberg reports that during the 2010 election, oil and gas companies were the 15th largest source of political contributions. Koch Industries Inc. was the largest contributor in the industry, and gave over 90 percent of their money to Republicans.

Past Huffington Post pieces show that API has previously campaigned against climate legislation, and Greenpeace revealed a memo from API president Jack Gerard suggesting the institute fight climate legislation by defining it as "tax increases on our industry."

API claims greenhouse gas regulations are "burdensome." Meanwhile, 2010 was one of the hottest years on record, an estimated 50 million people will be environmental refugees in under 10 years, and reports pile on of the health hazards surrounding Big Oil practices.

The Obama Administration has questioned the entire lobbying industry. In the 2012 budget, the administration proposed removing the billions of dollars that taxpayers pay in subsidies to oil companies each year. The administration estimates that in a decade, this repeal would yield $46 billion. Until action is taken though, Big Oil will continue to tighten the strings that influence the policies affecting its corporate interests.

Item Three

from Reuters

(See the article here)

Obama faces political heat

if Keystone rejected: API

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON | Wed Jan 4, 2012 4:26pm EST

(Reuters) - The head of the top oil and gas lobbying group said on Wednesday that the Obama administration will face serious political consequences if it rejects a Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline that has been opposed by environmental groups.

Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline would definitely play a role in this year's national elections.

"This issue is very simple and straightforward, it's about jobs and national security," Gerard told reporters after giving a speech on the state of U.S. energy.

"Anything less than approval or acquiescence in allowing the pipeline to go forward would be inconsistent with the vast majority of Americans," Gerard said.

The oil and gas industry says the country needs the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport 700,000 barrels per day or more of Canadian oil sands crude to U.S. Gulf coast refineries.

But the decision on the pipeline is a difficult one for President Barack Obama. Approval would upset environmentalists, an important part of his voter base, while axing the project would upset some labor unions, another part of his base.

With environmental groups concerned about carbon emissions from oil sands production, the administration had delayed a decision on a presidential permit for the project until 2013.

The administration says it needs more time to consider alternative routes for the pipeline, which originally was planned to traverse sensitive habitats and a crucial water source in Nebraska.

Lawmakers that support the project were able to attach a measure to a tax-cut law passed at the end of last year that requires the president to decide whether the project is in the national interest by late February.

API is launching an advertising campaign aimed at getting Americans to consider candidates' stances on energy issues, including the Keystone project, before they cast their ballots in November.

While Gerard stressed that the advertising campaign is non-partisan, API has been a vocal critic of the Obama administration's energy policies.

In addition to the Keystone delays, the group has blasted the administration for not opening up more areas to offshore drilling and for its push to eliminate certain tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

Republicans in Congress have also forcefully objected to the administration's delay of the Keystone pipeline, accusing the White House of placing politics over job creation.

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee have placed a clock on their website counting the days until the administration must weigh in on the project.

"After waiting more than three years for this pipeline while the country faces prolonged unemployment, the American people are fed up with the president's inaction on a project that can quickly create jobs," Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, said in a statement.

Playmates and Playpens

Both In the Sand Box AND the Girl Chained Up in the Basement

We may understand the "source" of Governor Perry's plan to re-invade Iraq, Senator Santorum's plan to outlaw birth control and Mitt Romney's plan to make corporate hamburger from every company that can't fight back. We have to assume that these ridiculous gambits are the all part of the risky price which must be paid to woo the crazy Republican base if one wishes to survive the grisly GOPCon Primary jousts.

The confusing difficulties arise from the "half bred" nature of the audience. One parent is the traditionally crooked Republican elites who have no motives other than more looting. The other parent is the carefully confounded tea bags who are still dancing to the hypnotic tune of Freedom Werken months after the owners ordered that outfit to pack up their hot wings, cowboy boots, banjos and fiddles and go home.

The problem faced by the party proper is that all these "mixed heritage" children have their own pistols, and they don't like each other.

However, in the case of the petrogarchs, the story is both more clear and more chilling. They cannot countenance the possibility that they won't be obediently handed their latest scam on a platter, and they plan to obliterate the "uppity" President who steadfastly remained loyal to his constituent supporters -- us. These boys are the ones who REALLY consider themselves to be the masters of the universe.

Their scheme is weak. The big bet made by the petrogarchs was that an uninformed electorate would instantly repeat the dive into their hackneyed old song of "Drill Baby, Drill," but the crowd for the "big plunge into eel lake" this time has proved to be far less than the "lemming-like unanimity" they have enjoyed previously.

This doesn't mean that they will give up, either. This just means that they will try harder. Plus, they have now "joined forces" with Karl Rove, the fascist servant of the autocrat Bush. They can pump oil drenched petrogarch cash into the recipe where ever and whenever they please -- lots and lots of it.

MeanMesa will undoubtedly be returning to this topic soon enough.

Presidential Debate 2012: MeanMesa Moderates

2012-02-19T21:20:00.000-07:00

Our Kind of Debate Moderator

The tidal flow of Republican debates have tarnished the concept of debate just as much as they have soiled the Republican candidates. MeanMesa has cringed while carefully selected "moderators" have pitch softballs one after another like the ball machine in a batting cage. On the rare occasions when an "ever so slightly less than soft" softball is issued, reactionary GOPCons begin either pitiful whining about media unfairness or suddenly violent attacks on the moderator before they even began to answer.

Of course, much of this soft treatment can be attributed to the ownership of the various media networks whose editors have supplied the debate moderators -- and, apparently also held the "last word" on which questions will be allowed. The questions have revealed almost nothing about a candidate's plans or policy, and the debates have, predictably, careened fecklessly into cameo speeches delivered when the question and the cameras select the next ideologue.

Exaggeration?

Think back. Have you heard Republican Presidential candidates debate the details of a single policy issue amid the endless ideological rhetoric and the buffoonish jeers of an audience populated, apparently, solely by hill billies from their base? The worst feature of the charade is that this "audience" of theirs seems quite satisfied with the non-answers and the blood soaked red meat.

Not all conservatives have fallen for the dope. For example, PBS NewsHour viewers have seen the quiet horror on David Brooks' face even while he tries gallantly to at least sustain some vestige of a serious grimace.

MeanMesa isn't satisfied with this lack luster pretense for politics either. However, while not much can be done to elevate the quality of the GOP candidates, the quality of the moderators' question can be improved significantly. This post will pose just a few questions MeanMesa would ask the Republican candidate in a Presidential debate.

MeanMesa's Questions as Moderator

If the Presidential debates are to be elevated political discourse above the dismal level of the Republican Primary debates, moderators will have to ask better questions. It seems that the quality of debate moderation to date has been severely limited to very comfortable questions, questions carefully crafted to avoid any particular reference to the last Republican administration.

MeanMesa feels that this is the wrong approach, in fact, not just wrong, but desperately dishonest. The 2012 Republican candidates will either be "more of the same" or "something different." Assuming that the "something different" label will be the more politically appealing of the two, it's quite reasonable to ask the GOP candidate how he is different and why he has changed. It is also quite reasonable to ask him why voters should believe that he has, actually, changed.

Of course, there are hundreds of questions which could be posed, but here, let's just take a look at a few of them. These are not "gotcha" questions, but they are pregnant questions.

"Pregnant questions?"

Yes, they are pregnant questions because there is a fetal truth in them somewhere, yearning to be born. On national television.

1. Budget

"During the last Republican administration, we saw the national debt increase by roughly $7 Tn dollars. About half of this increase resulted from the Bush tax cuts, and much of the rest resulted from simply borrowing money to pay for the wars and Medicare Part D instead of collecting adequate revenue."

"As the next Republican President would you continue with that last policy, increasing the national debt even more?"

Two "follow up" questions:

"Do you consider the spending cuts proposed by the Republicans in the House which have no particular connection to those causes of debt to be the best way to pay back that Bush debt?"

"Are you a different kind of Republican with a budget philosophy somehow different from the last Republican administration? If yes, how are you different? What caused you to change from the Republicans in the recent past?"

2. Elections

"A good number of red states have enacted new voter registration requirements although there is no evidence of voter fraud to justify them. Millions of voters who were able to vote in the last election will now require additional identification to vote in this election, and current estimates are that up to 3 million will not be able to meet the new requirements."

"Will your administration continue the recent work of state Republicans to make it more difficult to vote?"

Two "follow up" questions:

"Many Americans are concerned that in Iowa and Maine the results of the Republican primaries, elections controlled by the Republican Party, were erroneously reported. Should Americans be confident that the results of the national elections will be accurate?"

"Notably, the results of Republican electoral victories in 2000, 2004 and in 2010 were irregular. As President will you work to restore voter confidence that US elections are fair and honest and guarantee that legal voters have full access to voting?"

3. Making War

"Current public opinion polls suggest that most Americans are now dissatisfied with the previous administration's conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many voters are no longer confident with the Presidential leadership of these war efforts during the Republican Bush administration, feeling that they were not well justified, not effectively managed, far too long, far too expensive and producing indecisive outcomes."

"Do you agree with this opinion? What changes would you implement in war making as the Commander in Chief?"

Two "follow up" questions:

"Do you think that, because they were not paid for, the borrowing to pay for these wars was an avoidable part of the present national debt?"

"The previous Republican administration made the threat of a nuclear strike, if necessary to pre-empt the Islamic Republic of Iran from building a nuclear weapon. During the Republican debates, all but one of the candidates spoke of a willingness to stop an Iranian nuclear capability. If the use of nuclear weapons were the only means to destroy hardened Iranian weapons facilities, would you as Commander in Chief authorize them?"

4. Citizens United

"This is the first national election after the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. Because of the ruling, large amounts of PAC money have entered the political arena which would have been illegal before the decision. Do you think that this change in election financing laws has helped your campaign? Do you think that this Supreme Court decision has been a benefit to the American democratic process?"

Two "follow up" questions:

"If you, as President, were to support election finance reform, what would your goals be in such an effort?"

"Do you believe it would be Constitutional for the Congress to pass laws which would vacate the Citizens United decision? Would you sign such a law should it come to your desk in the Oval Office?"

And If the 2012 Debate Questions

Are Just More Corn Flakes?

Solidifying Syria

2012-02-16T21:41:00.001-07:00

Looking Again for Syria-Libya Similarity

The American public didn't do too well in perceiving Libya. In fact, we revealed a very nasty co-dependent streak. We kept insisting that until we knew all about the "replacement regime," we just couldn't really help out much beyond bad mouthing Gaddafi. Of course, as the overly righteous bunch that we are, we hardly broke a sweat with the dutiful "bad mouthing" assignment.

The premise was simple enough. "We are so good that you can't possibly be good unless we like you."

Someone had to take the political risk of acting on ideals rather than craven, petrogarchic capitalism or our usual psychopathic fear of anything happening anywhere in the world which unfolds beyond our control. Happily, our President took the risk.

However, it was in the "behind the scenes" action with Libya where the similarity to Syria can be found. In order to survive the predictable onslaught by the domestic wing nuts who would blame him for a rainy day, a few details had to get kicked into order before even Obama could proceed. These are precisely similar to the "loose ends" prevailing in Syria.

Rent-a-General, retired (image source)

The wing nut mantra was familiar. No exit strategy. Endless quagmire. A third war in the Middle East. The fear mongers barely had to even do so much as change the country name.

Someone to Answer the Phone

"Good afternoon. This is the United States calling. With whom am I speaking?"

The usual talking heads immediately took up the challenge. The preachers, coaches and retired generals marched out in lock step to tell Judy Woodruff about all the horrible things which were about to happen thanks to the incompetent and inexperienced professor in the Oval Office. When the nightmarish military failure had been robustly described, the rant moved on to being fooled by none other than al Qaeda itself masquerading as Libyan freedom fighters.

Ben Ghazi didn't help much. It seemed to take forever for the new government to reassure the West that they really were good guys, and all the while Gaddafi's tanks were warming up in the suburbs for some real meat grinding. Ask anyone in Misrata.

Well, Ben Ghazi then -- and still, even now -- faced the traditional problem of a suddenly successful insurgency. Unlike the other side where a heavy handed autocracy had long ago "homogenized" all disparate interests which could be useful and eliminated all those who were simply problems, the insurgents were composed of all sorts of elements united primarily by their consolidated determination to oust the last guys.

Typically, these various parts of an insurgency had spent little time imagining a unified state once their work was complete. All the rough edges of centuries of tribal conflicts, religious animosity, wealth disparity and the rest were alive and well, set aside only for the task at hand. This was the case in Libya, and this is the case in Syria.

Let's take a look at the various interest players in the conflict and the corresponding obstacles each one brings for solution.

The Syrians

Syria isn't quite as bad as Iraq in terms of pre-existing tribal divisions. After all, there was a place called Syria even in the time of the Roman Empire, although this isn't to say that all the factions had ever particularly mastered to art of getting along. The important point here is that each of these factions has its own priorities which must be satisfied in the end result.

Further, at some time through the long history of the place, most of these factions had attacked others, winning or losing, and creating very durable animosities. In the naive view of American Sunday School graduates and other policy Pollyannas, these difficulties should, reasonably, be simply swept away in favor of uniting under common cause. The idea that what exists is an historical equivalent of Lutherans declaring open war on Presbyterians for a couple of decades completely escapes them.

The conclave of interested parties at the Syrian Opposition has worked to form what is loosely named the National Council outside the country. With uncertain ties to the Free Syrian Army of defectors and regional insurgents around the country, the National Council is still being disrupted by factional priorities and questionable affiliation with the hundreds of thousands of Syrians still protesting on the streets.

Arab Spring Measure: The Syrians are in their Arab Spring.

The Iranians

Syria has long been a "jewel" in the Islamic Republic's structure for regional dominance. In the Sunni Shi'ite violence during the sectarian phase of US occupation in Iraq, the Iranian client state provided large numbers of "volunteers" to move across the common border to Iraq. Currently, a large part of the Iranian military shipments to Syria cross the Eastern regions of Iraq against UN arms embargoes.

Syria supplies military equipment to both the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian [Gaza] Hamas against the UN arms embargoes in place for both destinations. Syria, itself without much capacity for arms manufacturing, acts as a forwarding agent in these cases.

Iran's worst nightmare is to become isolated. Without access to its client states in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, Iran's capacity to create and sustain irreconcilable hostilities would be gravely reduced, leaving the Islamic Republic with only far more direct alternatives for expressing its influence in the region. Tehran has no appetite for face to face conflict, although accomplishing its nuclear ambitions might mitigate some of this reluctance.

Arab Spring Measure: Iranians are more than half way into their Arab Spring.

The Chinese

The catastrophic Security Council failure on Syrian issues was orchestrated by the Russians and the Chinese. China's motive is slightly more passive that the Russian Federation's. Politically, China has little hegemonic interest in non-adjacent territories. The Chinese clearly valued Iranian oil supply and general "coziness" with Middle Eastern dictatorships who have survived the Arab Spring. The PRC took a much more troubled glance at the Arab Spring than was presented in domestic US news because something similar could easily contest the State Council's total control inside China.

Arab Spring measure: Rural areas, ethnically diverse areas and acquired provinces such as Tibet and the Uighurs are ready to begin their Arab Spring.

The Russians

The Russian Federation, however, has a much more direct interest in the survival of the Assad regime in Syria. For one thing, Syria is saturated with Russian military products -- everything from the SAM's Syria has installed to prevent another Israeli air threat to Damascus to the smoke belching tanks which were unable to prevent the Israeli incursion into Golan. If the Assad government, as a military client, were overthrown by street protests and the Free Syrian Army, global Russian arms sales would suffer.

However, Russia's stance with the Security Council VETO squarely places its traditions of revolutionary thought on the examining table for the world to see. Russia might have appeared to be dealing with Syria, but it was concentrating on rebellious satellite countries where Arab Spring ideas were taking root.

Arab Spring measure: Many of the Federation's satellite states are ready to begin their Arab Spring. Urban citizens inside Russia proper are getting closer, freaked about the heavy hand of the Putin oligarchs.

The Americans

This administration has set its own high bar in American policy for direct intervention. The Libyan expedition was made legitimate by NATO participation, Security Council validation and Arab League approval. This should not be surprising for a President with such a legalistic outlook in such matters. It should also introduce the idea of a limit in the successful operation in the case of bin Laden. Obama will do it, but Obama will feel the full burden of what he's doing while he does it, not the least of which derives from his own idea of legitimacy.

Obama's ideals will be in play if he decides to act on the Syrian pogrom, but those ideals will not be gaseous niceties about poorly defined ideas of liberty and progress. Instead, they will be much more akin to the South Chicago street realities we saw in Pakistan. Bold, decisive and direct.

Pentagon and Congressional policy wonks will predictably offer up the same types of heavy handed, Cold War solutions enumerated with naval blockades, ground troops in the tens of thousands, saturation bombing and the like. The Pentagon will be looking for the next career opportunity, the Senate will be fiddling while the slaughter continues and the House will be consumed only with the happy, wet dream prospect of a military disaster for the Commander in Chief months before the election.

Although reasonably compassionate folks might wish for some "middle of the road" path forward, those in the government aspiring to the status of "war making expert" will be locked, as usual, in their tragically unsuited, out dated set of false choices. MeanMesa doesn't think that Obama sees it this way at all.

He has military technology which has never been available to past Presidents as they contemplated such questions. He matches this technological advantage with a steady pragmatism and steely will -- both of which represent unsettling, essentially unknown attributes to the stodgy remnants of the Bush military establishment.

Arab Spring measure: The Americans may be further into their Arab Spring than they are willing to admit.

The "technology?"

Drones

Of course there are a few "loose ends," but the military element is straight forward enough. US drones are a perfect match for tanks firing randomly into civilian areas and convoys of troops and military supplies rolling along Syrian highways to their next killing field. Coupled with no longer particularly secret satellite intelligence, the combination would castrate the dictatorship's and his terror squads' fire power advantage in days.

Low Hanging Fruit (image source)

We would then be at a very familiar foreign policy place. The codependent side of American life would be screaming the predictable questions about "Who are we helping?" and probably moaning the now over worked, road weary lament about an exit strategy.

Libya has shown us that the "exit strategy" hobgobblin has no teeth if there has never been an "entrance." As for Syria, flatten a few tanks actively engaged in the act of civilian murder, and level enough convoys so that the remainder start taking the threat seriously enough to begin keeping their heads down.

The plan would be to "plow the road" for a bit, then let the insurgency run its course. With the tanks and convoys more or less out of the picture, it wouldn't take long.

Loose Ends

We can address this issue best with a few questions. Imagine an irate Russian Federation Foreign Ministry staffer in a closed meeting with Secretary of State, Hillary.

"You had no right to attack the Syrian government. What makes you think you can just fly in there are start blowing up tanks?"

"The tanks were murdering the legitimate Syrian government."

"The US didn't even have a treaty with the Syrian opposition government! You had no legal basis for this unprovoked attack."

"Okay. We haven't heard any requests about stopping from the legitimate Syrian opposition government, but you have a point. We'll stop the attacks right away, although it will probably take a few days for the order to move through the Pentagon."

"Al Qaeda and the Iranians are going to move in there and take over. The US can't trust the terrorists and foreign insurgents to 'play nice' with the US after they take power."

"We don't think so. We're willing to take the risk. It's not likely that the new Syrian government is going to be interested in keeping the same friends as the old one. We expect to just help out a bit, then slip away and let things take their course."

"You're going to recklessly unleash chaos and instability throughout the region."

"If you haven't noticed, there is a tidal wave of chaos and instability in the region already. We're determined to not be cynical. Instead, we'll be optimistic. We're trying to work on our control issues. You have shown the world which side of things you favor with your VETO vote. We're showing the world which side of things we favor. After this, everyone will pretty much know everything."

The drones make US involvement truly "casual." The particular drones selected for the mission should be among the cheapest, simplest choices. The devices were designed to be expendable, and Syrian SAMs will inevitably shoot down some. There are no particular treaty obligations to be met. The collateral damage will be very limited -- tanks sitting out in the open firing on a Syrian city are pretty much "low hanging fruit."

When the drone attacks suddenly cease and no invasion follows, the message to the Syrian people will be clear. "Now it's your turn. You're in charge."

Wealth: The 21st Century American Paradox

2012-02-13T15:29:00.000-07:00

Some Interesting Questions

MeanMesa's faceBook page is filled daily with comments and revelations about the now grotesque wealth concentration in our Republic. Although MeanMesa sympathizes with such ideas, empathizes with the intention of these modern "muck rakers" and, generally, is in agreement with the often narrowly disguised outrage which motivates such discourse, there seems to be something missing.

"Something missing?"

Yes. That "something" can, perhaps, be expressed clearly in a few simple questions.

1. Where do we go from here?

Beyond simply "not liking it," the horizon is disturbingly free of counter proposals. What would the US economy look like if this wealth inequality issue were to be resolved? Restoring the cultural aspects of American capitalism seems to be a well targeted proposition when considered only in the scope of isolated examples, but why stop with simply rectifying the most egregious and identifiable parts of the problem?

A comprehensive and fundamental solution seems to be the only way we can re-create our economy, but what is it?

2. How far do we go?

Somewhere along the line, the vast wealth being horded by the richest among us will, presumably, need to have new owners. Also, presumably, the old owners will not be rushing forward to simply cooperate with such a plan. Will new tax policy -- perhaps including retroactive wealth taxes -- do the trick? Further, what kind of representative government would ever be able to muster such an effort? What alternatives are there? Who or what will receive the "liberated dollars?" What will be done with them?

3. How fast do we go?

There are widely varied opinions about the immediacy of the necessary time line. MeanMesa proposes that time may be of the essence. Yet, the faster the corrections take place, the more likely they are to be truly destructive and, possibly, violent. If a slow and steady approach is adopted, we could easily find ourselves facing the same problem even before we have solved the current one -- only the same problem with substantially improved defensive fortifications.

Was There Ever Really Any Idea About

How To Do It?

Even before the Revolution from England, wealth distribution was already a well established social reality. Aside from the high flung idealism found in our modern history texts, we were a country obsessed if not by the distribution of wealth directly, at least by the ideas about the distribution of opportunity. Further, this same question was already, front and center, on the minds of pre-Revolutionary Americans at all levels of the economic ladder.

The connected elite among the mercantile dreamers watching their ships arrive from Europe had their own idea. The struggling farmer with just enough land to have his own dreams had his own idea, too. Slaves weren't allowed to have such dreams or ideas, but their owners certainly were.

As all versions of these concepts jumbled along through good times and bad for the next two centuries, political morality always rose to the occasion to justify whatever momentary model was embraced. Virtual libraries of past ideas -- including, very often, the Holy Christian Bible -- lent themselves to the effort to determine what style of wealth distribution was right, inevitable, moral, effective or ideologically pure, to inject legitimacy into both rapacious luxury and the misery of poverty, to delineate the respective causes and responsibilities of each and to narcotize the unfulfilled with every possible kind of conceptual economic analgesic.

This frustrating chaos of continually flirting with various economic principles is not at all unique in history. Humans have long held the habit of proceeding forward in all sorts of things without a thoughtful "big picture" to guide their efforts. Each time the prevailing concept of wealth distribution modernized itself, economic historians provided new labels, naming the old and the new and characterizing each modernization as revolutionary, transformative, corrective or evolutionary.

2012 has, once again, seemed to lift the curtain for the next scene in the old play. This latest episode of "seeking the right path" may be notable for how quickly traditional defaults are being discarded. There's no shortage of old stuff -- Biblical, Roman, Keynesian and Marxist. There's no shortage of new stuff -- internationalist, class based, corporatist and oligarchic.

Oooops. The list of new stuff seems to be the same as the list of old stuff.

The point here is that none of these convenient choices seems to gain much traction as a candidate for today's path ahead. Still, we may actually be watching the sausage making process of birthing the next economic model -- and, especially, the next wealth distribution model -- as we speak.

The starkest similarity to what has happened in the past? The designers of the new have neither any particular knowledge of nor any particular interest in what has been tried before. This has always been the case. Yes, the high borne treatises on economies were being written during the French Revolution, but the folks dropping the guillotine blades never read them.

Not then, and not now. Opportunity, defined as money, has always had much more weight than theory.

How Will We Change Wealth Distribution?

First, we must probably dispatch a few old ideas. Especially old ideas about the "legitimate ownership" of wealth. That "ownership" will now be called to test. If the "ownership" is to be legitimate (accepted by the social culture as a whole), then the sources of such wealth must be deemed equally legitimate. The new "judges of legitimacy" will be the folks dropping the guillotine blades, not the theorists perched over their word processors in campus offices.

The "No, not this." vote is one of the simplest to make. The current state of opinion about the legitimacy of existing wealth distribution wins this vote easily.

But, using that base line as a starting point, the next questions appear immediately.

1. How much must wealth distribution be changed before it becomes acceptable?

Is a little movement going to be enough? How "equal" must "wealth equality" become before the participants -- including the theory authors, the guillotine blade droppers, the lavishly wealthy and those in poverty -- can agree that a suitable amount of progress and change has solved the problem?

If "wealth inequality" is the problem, what does the solution look like?

2. What are acceptable limits to such a corrective action given the grave severity of the existing structure?

While the French Revolution was roaring at full, violent force, the mansions of the noble families were looted by the first folks who got through the doors, but the intangibles of royal wealth -- the shipping companies, warehouses, farms and so on -- became the property of the Revolutionary government. In 18th Century France, noblemen had lots of direct valuables, gold, jewels, silver and other trappings of wealth in their homes, but, like today, the foundation of their wealth was in commercial holdings.

After Octavian had struggled through the Roman civil war and survived the Triumvirate, he simply assassinated the wealthy Romans who had opposed him, transferring their fortunes to the Imperial coffers. Of course, Octavian had the key to the Imperial coffers.

Those with an ambition of correcting the "wealth inequality" we see around us now would prefer to avoid both Octavian's assassinations and the French looting. However, similar to both examples, the real wealth which is the foundation of modern wealth inequality is not found in liberated mansions, no matter how lavish they might be.

3. If illegitimate wealth is to be redeemed from its current owners, where will it be put?

The flow of assets into Octavian's Imperial coffers suggest that our government would be a logical destination. However, that same government was, historically, also very obviously complicit in the relentless, painful, tedious course which led to the problem in the first place.

Additionally, much of the damage done by the illegitimate distribution of wealth languishes all around. Needlessly living with this neglect has been one of the strong motivators for those who would solve the problem. However, there is "another layer" of incendiary frustration associated with the wreckage. Even when those who may have wished to do so sought to collect sufficient resources for such repairs, the illegitimate wealthy routinely looted even those meagre savings before a single bolt could be tightened.

The government was the chief mechanism of the endless rampage. There were neither bridge repairs nor lower taxes, only more debt, more borrowing, more poverty and more economic, ideological arrogance. Nothing else was allowed.

Next, we will "design" the economic mechanism which will correct the wealth distribution. Don't expect a really great, new idea to materialize over night in some Occupy encampment. For one thing, poor people -- really poor people -- will finally not only have a voice but an unexpectedly loud one. Not theorists, poor people. The sort who were dropping the guillotine blades.

If we really intend to do this, and we probably really do intend to do this, a little careful forethought might be in order.

What If Citizens United Isn't Really the Problem?

2012-01-23T13:12:00.001-07:00

Consequences, Symptoms and Causes

The difference between the "consequences, symptoms and causes" can become quite blurred when sought from a reactionary baseline. We can be so engrossed in "reacting" that important, "bigger picture" issues slip by us. For one thing, there is the matter of time. Generally, time must pass between the initiation of causes and the resulting consequences -- especially when social or cultural issues are hosting the developments.

As for "symptoms," although often quite material, perhaps the most notable quality of symptoms is that they are the precursors of the actual consequences. While very durable consequences are maturing in the background, the symptoms are the "canaries in the coal mine" which notify us that things are changing.

MeanMesa thought that we might need this short, hyper-academic, conceptual interlude to set the foundation for the arguments which follow in this posting.

It's actually quite easy to become reactionary when considering the Citizens United ruling, its consequences, its symptoms and its causes, but let's take the effort to transcend even that, more or less, all encompassing viewpoint. MeanMesa thinks that the most interesting truth of the matter resides in the arena which hosts Citizen United, that is, the environment which serves to lend weight to its consequences, symptoms and causes.

If the thing were no more than carelessly abandoned debris left on some deserted New Mexico mesa somewhere, doing nothing but catching an occasional tumble weed, its grave threat to American democracy would be nothing more than a theory.

Citizens United -- as a "Symptom"

It started in our public schools.

Now, we have to look at precisely the advantage that Citizens United has delivered into the hands of those rich enough to utilize the ruling. The first thing which comes to mind is the "discovered legality" of the process of unlimited spending to manipulate the political process. Sure, there are a few rules, but toothless, unenforceable ones -- rules perhaps best described as "voluntary disciplines" which were made to sound workably given the strong, patriotic ideals and honor of those likely to test them.

Most Americans used to learn how to run our government. (image source)

However, all this stuff amounts to a pile of symptoms. Yes, these are the immediate injuries the democracy faces, but a more sinister culprit lurks deeper down -- in the foundation of exactly why Citizens United works.

Remember. It wouldn't matter if it didn't work. But, it does.

Stripped of all the decision's judicial outrages, Citizens United has everything to do with education. There is a largely unexamined "body of knowledge" in the mind of an American voter as he makes his way to the polls. Further, that "body of knowledge" has a very shadowy definition and an even more shadowy set of sources.

In past days, one important source of that "body of knowledge" was the education which provided the essential literacy of the nation. Way back then, every student in a US public school studied the mechanism of American democracy in a civics class and accumulated some sort of knowledgeable world view from the common history lessons taught in every school named after a President from Vermont to Alabama.

Another traditional source of that "body of knowledge" was provided by actual media reporting. Radio stations, television stations and news papers caused plenty of mischievous bias in those days, but they competed with each other -- they competed with each other for credibility and objectivity. And that competition for a reputation of "truth telling" enjoyed eager consumers.

Does the name "Walter Cronkite" ring a bell?

A "Body of Knowledge" and an "Informed Electorate"

All this has something to do with the US Constitution.

By the time elections rolled around, a huge part of the "body of knowledge" accompanying voters as they went to the polls originated in either public school education or the media's reporting or both. Of course, the "other part" of that "body of knowledge" came from the politicians. The exact ratio of how much came from the first source and how much came from the second source is anybody's guess but, we can still see the results of those choices in elections.

In MeanMesa's 70 trips around the sun, precisely this serves as an example of the now hardly known requirement to operate our government called "an informed electorate." The founders considered the idea important for the democracy, and they referred to the concept often in our founding papers. They intended for the "informed electorate" to make informed choices in our democratic elections.

It's time for an example.

Walking around in today's United States, it's relatively easy to find a voter who is blankly terrified with the current combination of Iranian belligerence coupled with Obama's proposed defense spending cuts. The point made here is not an opinion on the issues involved in the argument, but with the "body of knowledge" that voter is "using" to make his very questionable decision at the polls.

The ratio between information sources mentioned above has changed. In fact, even the sources have changed. Our voter has been convinced that he dare not lend any particular credibility to media reporting, and he has never been exposed to enough history or civics to pique his curiosity about what he "knows."

So, where is our voter getting the information he will need to be part of an "informed electorate?" Now, we are finally arriving at the "prize on the table" which has inspired so many billionaires to "indulge themselves" with the new legalities made possible by Citizens United.

The stakes are high -- sky high.

Even Cheaper Than "Bread and Circuses"

A thousand watt station versus a thousand loaf bakery

The Roman plutocrats of the Imperial period had to fork over some major cash to sway the electorate of the day. Those old Romans were a bit pickier than modern Americans. The more modern crowd will cave in quickly with just a few, well engineered, incendiary talking points. However, the point remains the same.

Pompeii - distribution of Roman bread.

Just as the oligarchs' demariae flowed in ancient Rome, modern cash will still purchase what is needed to win elections now. The difference is that the old Romans literally bought votes with their gifts while the modern oligarchs spend money to very carefully manufacture largely unexamined "mind sets" which can be trusted to behave properly in the voting booths.

"Mind sets?" Yes, "mind sets" is a generous, collective term describing many little pieces and bits of "motivators" which are patiently and relentless implanted, day after day, election season or not, into the consciousness of the willing. Citizens United money is now free to do precisely this -- without limit. The scope of the wealth of those providing the cash for such endeavors is fundamentally incomprehensible to those who consume the product.

Further, although the Citizens United ruling was about a film criticising Clinton, the money need not always take such an identifiable form. 30 and 60 second toxic commercials are favorite media purchases -- by the hundreds. Extremely mediocre books are written then purchased by such money for free distribution as the "sales" elevate them to "best seller" status and fame.

The Clinton film was an example of a "big piece." The wars in the election booths will be won by an immense myriad of "small pieces." Further, the broadcast of these "smaller pieces" is cheaper, faster and more efficient than anything the Romans dreamed of accomplishing with their loaves and circus tickets. Considered as a whole, Citizens United has turned over the task of educating the "informed electorate" to the highest bidder.

In earlier days, any political platform had an "unmanageable ally" in the settled history of any issue. Voters had learned about such things in public school. They might be swayed by political rhetoric during a campaign, but what was being "swayed" amounted to persuasive adjustments to mere details of knowledge attached to the much larger bodies they had learned about in school.

Did You Notice
that Politics Were Getting "Jumpy Wild?"

Further, the "distance issues could be swayed" -- the "swaying" aspect of campaigns -- was much smaller. Political discourse was much more centered on tangible plans compared to the modern focus on ideology -- along with some the lingering, darker sides of American opinion. For example, the race baiting and arrogant classicism of modern politics would have been unthinkable during the Eisenhower campaign. The result was discourse much more attuned to the challenges and opportunities which were material and "on the table" -- the plans and promises of a typical campaign by either party.

To make Citizens United worth anything, the vacuum left by a failed public education system had to be in place first. To an "informed electorate" many of the incendiary gambits which are quite saleable today would have amounted to tasteless sarcasm. Few millionaires or billionaires would have reached into their pockets to publicize such ineffective material.

In 21st Century America there is no longer even a "comparable memory" of a functioning media. Not only has aggressive, competitive reporting ceased long ago, the contaminated "news" presentations no longer even fear being called editorial, an indictment which would have incited terror on the city desks of the 50's and 60's. The vacuum of objectivity which is the predictable result of such a pervasive failure might have caused market corrections back when networks competed with each other for reporting objectivity.

Now, however, that vacuum can be very efficiently filled by decidedly commercial sources -- examples of which abound as we review the media purchases of the Citizens United crowd. "Commercial?" Yes. Citizens United media investments are all part of a marketing scheme, directed by specific goals of influence on voter turn out and all with an aim which includes profit somewhere down along the line -- very often in the redirection of tax money or other legislated advantages.

Modern politicians are not only generously sponsored by those whose interests they intend to serve when elected, they have become actual surrogates for those interests. The protection offered by Citizens United money is paid for -- compensated by legislative actions which could not have previously survived the eye of an "informed electorate."

One thing leads to another. Stupidity turns into cash.

Evidence of the educational vacuum has really been front and center in the conduct and statements of candidates in this Republican Primary. For example, one famous gaff of then front runner Bachmann placed Paul Revere's route in New Hampshire.

An early map of the 2012 New Hampshire Primary (image source)

However, of note here, is that this ridiculous gaff didn't lower Ms. Bachmann's approval ratings among Republican Primary voters. Still think that an "educational vacuum" is a mere exaggeration?

Some Americans think that the only proper response to Citizens United is to strike back, that is, do to the oligarchs what they tried to do to us.

This won't work.

So long as the "prize" remains on the table, either Citizens United or something similar will continue to operate. The only way to drive a stake through the heart of this monstrosity is to remove the "prize." Should the American electorate become, once again, somewhat informed, Citizens United will die the death it deserves, a slow, confounding demise driven home first by a dwindling credibility, then finally, by a profound lack of interest.

It turns out that there is very little difference between uninformed and uninterested.

Finally, a short note from MeanMesa.

Short Current Essays

Never Intended To Report the "News"

It's all opinion.

Oh sure, MeanMesa has -- very occasionally -- scooped news stories as they were approaching. In the first days of the Tunisian uprising, Short Current Essays predicted that the Arab Spring was poised to roam far and wide through the Middle East. [January, 2011: Over Estimating the Distance to Tunis ] When President Obama shuffled Panetta, Patraeus and Gates, MeanMesa predicted a very substantial cut to US DOD "defense spending." [April, 2011: Part 1: The Most Serious Military Campaign in US History and, May, 2011: Part 2: The Most Serious Military Campaign in US History ]