Feeding the Beast?

Admiral Mike Mullen was on the Hill on Thursday, when he confirmed some of Congress' worst fears about Pakistan. He was asked if Pakistan was expanding its nuclear arsenal. His answer--one word: Yes. This comes as the United States undertakes an unprecedented effort to boost the Pakistani military, providing billions of dollars in aid. Aid that many worry is being given out carte blanche.

Ostensibly, the aid is being given to help the Pakistanis deal with a relentless and resurgent Taliban that threatens Pakistani security interests and our own interests in Afghanistan as thousands of American troops fight to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan. So, the question is--what are the Pakistanis doing with the money, and how can the United States, Pakistan, Afghanistan and all of the other regional players work together to bring down the Taliban and finally create some semblance of stability.

Increasingly, policy makers are worried about Pakistan. For all of the talk (Pakistan claims to have killed 1,000 Taliban militants over the weekend), Pakistan still has not pulled some of its most battle hardened units off of the border with India to deal with its own internal crisis in the Swat Valley. There are concerns that Pakistan isn't doing everything that it can--or must do in order to win the war against the Taliban. Is the United States funding nuclear proliferation that could reignite a regional arms race with India and other power players in the region? Sometimes, the best intentions (to provide aid in fighting an evil insurgent group) can lead to terrible outcomes (nuclear proliferation). Maybe it's time to reevaluate U.S. aid to Pakistan, and our military aid policies in general.

Star Trek: "Jar Jar Binks"ed

As a kid, I loved Star Trek. I grew up with Star Trek TNG, and then Star Trek Voyager. I will not forget the hopeful and optimistic outlook that it had, and everything that it stood for. I was pumped about the recent Star Trek premiere. I read nothing but positive reviews, and I was sure that this would be the movie that would reinvigorate the entire Star Trek series. I left the theater entertained, but disappointed.

The new movie was high on effects, graphics, and action but light on what made Star Trek great: substance. Sure, you throw in some red matter, and interstellar battle---but that's not what Star Trek is about. I don't mean to sound like a purist here, but Star Trek is supposed to be more than flashing phasers, and awesome space ships. It is supposed to convey a message. The latest Trek didn't make sense, and was lacking in terms of a message or a story that could resonate with audiences.

I think this is a larger symptom of a growing problem. Star Trek was JarJar Binksed. When George Lucas tried to recast Star Wars through his prequels, he introduced Jar-Jar Binks, a terrible, superificial character who couldn't speak English designed to appeal to the five and under crowd. Star Wars lost its credibility the moment that Jar Jar walked onto the screen, and I fear that Trek faces a similar danger. Thoughts?

New Hope in Harlem

It seems that it is one of the platitudes that we hear over and over again: education is the solution to poverty and in the minds of some, just about every other social ill. Education (so the story goes) provides people with the means to climb up and over the obstacles that surround them and transforms their lives. For years, it seemed like this was just an empty promise. Education reform failed to deliver. No Child Left Behind resulted in thousands of failing schools and threats, but nothing actually happened to significantly improve educational outcomes.

That just might be changing. An informative piece in the New York Times discusses a new system of charter schools in Harlem that seems to be doing what some have thought was impossible: taking disadvantaged students who scored twenty points or worse behind their peers and bringing them up to grade-level---in some cases, even surpassing their well-heeled peers in test scores. This report was somewhat inspiring--there is a way to close the achievement gap between students and to undertake genuine educational reform that actually works. I still wonder how the schools work. I am skeptical of schools that are overly "military" in style, or that fail to provide a lot of options and enrichment to students; schools are supposed to exist not just to drill in facts and knowledge or to "socialize" students to societal norms, but also to provide a safe environment for students to be creative and to apply what they are learning. That is why America leads the world in terms of technology; innovative education and innovative citizens have opportunity in this country. I hope that education reform encourages innovation and creativity and does not stifle it.

What do you think?

Wow---it has been a long time. What a difference a year makes! When I first started blogging in May, the economy was in a downward spiral, the Middle East looked like it was going to erupt, and gas was flirting with $4/gallon. It seems like a totally different world only a year later. Gas is now $2.19 (as of yesterday), we have a new President--a historic President who is committed to change and redefining America and our place in the world. The economy has bled millions of jobs, and Americans are hurting, but we have an indomitable spirit that has been reinvigorated by the hope that President Obama has brought and continues to bring to our country. It is time for Americans to think again about the bright possibilities that lie ahead for our country--all of the potential that we have, and the good that we can do when we are united together for the common cause of rebuilding our country and shaping a new world. I know it sounds like college-age enthusiasm and naivety, but sometimes, you just have to believe that things can and will get better.

$8/gallon?

The national average for gas prices hit $4.05/gallon in the U.S. today--with no end in sight to rising gas and oil prices. Congress has called for an investigation into market manipulation. Americans drove 5% less this Memorial Day than last year--demand is down, supply is up. The law of supply and demand would seem to indicate that prices should be coming down, albeit moderately. The one thing that continues to drive up prices is a fear of conflict in the Middle East.

Today, President Bush is making his last European tour. On the trip, he urged German Chancellor Angela Merkel to cut all business ties with Iran. All of this is fueling fears about Middle East tensions.

Even more dramatically, news was released last week that Congress and the Pentagon were considering allowing Israel to purchase new U.S. F-22 fighter jets. The current policy is not to export these planes to anyone---not even our closest allies (Japan was denied these new planes). The Israeli PM indicated that Israel would consider attacking Iran if it thought that Tehran continued to pursue nuclear weapons.

Clearly, Iran poses a serious threat to Israel, and would be an even greater threat with nuclear weapons, so the Israeli position is somewhat understandable.

What does all of this have to do with the F-22 and gas prices? The F-22 is our most advanced fighter--it is actually a stealth fighter and is very difficult to detect using conventional radar. When President Bush met with Ehud Olmert (Israeli PM) last week, it was rumored that Olmert specifically asked the President for the F-22. With the F-22, Israel could launch an assault on Iran much more easily, especially with the stealth technology. As time goes by, Iran continues to enhance their defenses to the point where some of Israel's other fighters might be in danger should an assault be launched. The F-22 would be the perfect option for a quick, surgical attack on Iran.

All of this has fuelled speculation in some circles that Israel may intend to attack Iran if no progress is made on the nuclear weapons front sooner rather than later. Keep in mind that this is all rumor and pure speculation---but it seems that it is speculation and rumor that has been the driving force behind the upward trend in oil prices for the last couple of weeks. While Israel may be limited in its options in this regard, one thing is for sure: it spells higher gas prices for everyone.

An attack on Iran could lead to widespread tension in the Middle East--maybe even war. It is time to prepare for higher gas prices, and finally wean ourselves off of the oil that we are so dependent on.

The Trouble With Ethanol

Congress and the President have passed countless laws and measures aimed at building America's ethanol industry. It is done in the name of decreasing dependence on foreign oil, and making America "energy independent." There are tax incentives in place, massive tarrifs on imported ethanol and more which have pushed farmers to divert production away from food towards fuel. Ethanol isn't inherently bad--in fact, it could be a very viable way to decrease our independence. The problem is CORN ETHANOL. Corn ethanol is at least 5-6 times less efficient than ethanol that can produced from sugar cane, or other plants, like switch grass.

What does this mean for the average American? Because the majority of the ethanol that is produced in this country is made from corn, it means broad price increases across the board. Farmers realize that they can make much more by growing corn as oppossed to other crops. It is hard to blame farmers throughout this crisis, who typically have a difficult time and often get little for their crops--they are just doing what makes economic sense. The consequences for the rest of the country have been stark: already, the price of wheat is up a whopping 120% this year alone. This translates into higher prices for basic staples like bread and baked goods. In America, this price increase has been hard enough, but around the rest of the world, it has been even worse. Even though we often do not feel like it, the average American is still much better off than citizens in other countries around the world, particularly in the developing world. A 120% increase a basic necessity in developing countries has had severe consequences. Already, there have been massive riots in countries from Haiti to Egypt. Recent price increases actually forced the Haitian Prime Minister from office, under threat from armed and angry mobs. In the future, if we continue to divert wheat and other crop production to corn, we can expect to see this kind of instability increase dramatically, and for more consequences to be felt here at home as well.

For much of the last several decades, the world has been largely reliant on the United States to supply food. Even though the US typically runs a large trade deficit, $708.5 billion in 2007 alone--one bright spot has always been US agricultural exports. The US typically exports billions of dollars worth of corn, beef and other farm-related products. Many developing countries have gotten used to low US prices and cheap US agricultural goods--only to find them snatched away by increasing artificial demand for corn, driven by government tax incentives. This only exacerbates hunger problems around the world. In addition, groups such as USAID (the US governments official humanitarian aid agency) are no longer able to provide the kind of food aid that they did in the past--everything costs more, even to these important groups. As a result, important gains that were made over the course of the last decade particularly in nutrition and in reversing malnutrition are slipping away.

Despite all of the negative news, ethanol doesn't have to be a bad thing. Ethanol produced from sugarcane or switch grass has more energy potential with less human cost. Some in Congress are just beginning to come around. Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona recently proposed measures that would remove all tariffs and tax incentives--a step which would certainly decrease demand for ethanol which has been inflated by the federal government. However, the Representative should be careful not to elminiate incentives for more efficient ethanol production, such as sugarcane or switch grass.

One of America's top national security goals--if not the top national security goal should be to pursue energy independence. However, lawmakers must realize that this cannot come at the expense of average Americans who are facing dramatically higher costs, and people around the world who face food that they can no longer afford and rising instability. More investment in alternative ethanol and other promising alternative energies must become a priority sooner, rather than later.

Our Housing Crisis

The Housing Crisis is in full swing, sending the economy into a swooning, downward spiral. Proposals and empty promises are coming out of Washington like never before. But what do all these proposals add up to? Most are just another example of politicians who are out of touch with reality and insulated from the concerns that most average, middleclass Americans have to deal with each day.

The President's proposal is particularly egregious: he argues that the government should do nothing to "bail out" irresponsible speculators. Irresponsible speculators? People are losing their HOMES at rates that haven't been seen since the Great Depression era! Granted, there are those who bought investment properties and helped lead to the overheating in the real estate market. But by and large, we are dealing with a crisis that is affecting real families and their ability to have a home to live in. This isn't about speculators--this is about human decency. How can the President, or anyone else look at mothers and fathers struggling to provide a safe place for their kids to grow up, and then sit idly by, as their homes and their dreams are ripped away because of economic circumstance beyond their control?

Talk about double standards: the President argues out the other side of his mouth that we should be providing "corporate welfare" to big banks and companies. The Federal Reserve has already given away BILLIONS in dollars to the banks. Why? Because the banks speculated and they lost. That's right---the banks are the real SPECULATORS!!! Our largest financial institutions went out on a limb and made bad investments--investments that are now costing all of us. The government didn't just sit idly back and allow these corporate behemoths to fall--no--quite the opposite. The Fed has pulled out all of the stops to bail out our financial institutions. Of course, no one would ever call them on their "speculation". These banks aren't "irresponsible speculators", they're "pillars of our economy".

It is time that Washington recognize that individual citizens are just as important to the economy as the big banks. It is time to realize that not only those with big pocketbooks are worth defending, and it is past time to end the doublespeak when it comes to this economic crisis. If individual Americans who are losing their homes can be called "irresponsible speculators" and be denied the assistance that they need to continue to shelter their families, than big business should be called for what they are: irresponsible speculators. The President should stop this double standard and his harsh rhetoric against Americans in trouble and realize that the average American is every bit as valuable as corporate America.

Stumble It!