Nuclear power is the future (for now)

I’ve recently taken to reading David Frum’s blog, simply because I’ve been looking for places to read serious conservative thought which doesn’t involve screaming or insane comparisons of health care reform to Nazi death camps.  My old conservative magazine of choice, National Review, has been overtaken by the ideologues, I fear, and Bill Buckley is dead.  The Weekly Standard is not a serious choice, either.  Frum, on the other hand, seems willing to acknowledge the fact that good government sometimes means bending on one’s principles, since there is no “one size fits all” set of ideas.  I’m also willing to make that concession.  The Democrats seem to be showing how limited their toolbox really is, and at the risk of being bitten, I’d like to re-engage American conservatives in a serious discussion.

 

I’ll start with something at once controversial and non-partisan: nuclear power.

 

Frum writes:

 

http://www.frumforum.com/more-nukes

The big cost in wind and solar is not the turbine or the solar panel. The prices of turbine and panels could fall to zero, and still wind and solar would cost much more than coal or nuclear. Electricity cannot be stored and it is expensive to move. Cheap power is power that flows at predictable levels and is generated near to its users.

A modern nuclear reactor can generate about 1300 megawatts of electricity. A single nuclear plant with two or three reactors can generate enough power to sustain a fair-sized city – and can be sited as close to the population center as politics permits, so long as there is a body of water nearby for reactor cooling.

A modern wind turbine generates at most 2 megawatts. To equal a single reactor you’d need 650 turbines – probably many more, since they are so unreliable. Now think of the cost of the land assembly to support this vast array of machines. Next – think about the wiring required to connect them to a grid. Finally – think of the cost of moving that power across the country, because wind blows strongest in places like west Texas and the Dakotas, about as far as you can get from the nation’s big consumer markets. It’s the wiring that makes wind so costly, and that cost is not going to be reduced anytime soon by technological improvements.

Solar of course confronts this problem in even more radical form. The basic solar panel we’ve all seen emits only about 120 watts. You’d need acres of them to equal even the output of a wind turbine. And again, the sun shines brightest where people don’t live.

Frum makes a few points I hadn’t previously considered, but while electricity cannot be stored as such, there are ways to store other forms of potential energy which can be easily converted into electricity.  However, Frum is correct that such technology does not yet exist and as such our beloved renewable energy sources (which are wonderful, don’t get me wrong) cannot yet replace the amount of energy which coal currently produces.  Nuclear can.

 

It emits no greenhouse gases, and it produces less radioactive waste than coal plants.

 

Huh?

 

Don’t take my word for it:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

 

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

 

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

 

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

 

In short, replacing coal plants with nuclear plants would reduce the amount of radioactive waste current being introduced into our environment.  Disposal is also at issue: it is much easier to dispose and contain the small amounts of radioactive waste from a nuclear plant than it is to contain all the fly ash from a coal plant.  Trying to contain all of that would be a logistical nightmare.

 

Nuclear energy is by no means a perfect solution, but it is one which would buy us more time to come up with something better.

 

Matthew Yglesias’s take largely revolves around the ideological inconsistencies inherent to conservatives backing nuclear power, due to the large government subsidies needed to stand up nuclear power on a large scale:

 

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/nuclear-socialism.php

 

What I find especially odd about it is that it’s so at odds with American conservatives’ ardor for the free market. You see this mismatch in a small sense in that their nuclear agenda in congress consists basically of asking for subsidies. But in a larger sense the issue is that the big example one can find of a country living the nuclear dream is . . . France. And it’s not just an irony or a funny coincidence, nuclear power in France is deeply tied to the genuinely socialistic (i.e., not just high taxes and a generous welfare state) aspects of the French economy.

 

Which is all well and good, but I’m less interested in whether or not an idea is ideologically consistent than I am in whether or not it will work.  Yglesias’s blog stems from a New Republic article written by Brad Plumer:

 

http://www.tnr.com/environment-energy/nuclear-option-0

 

The debate over nukes has long exacerbated the deadlock over climate policy. Of the handful of Republicans who think global warming is a serious problem--like Alexander--most refuse to address it unless nuclear power gets a starring role. But many Democrats and green groups are loath to lavish even more money on an industry that has received countless subsidies to date--including $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees in 2005--yet still struggles to procure financing for new plants, to say nothing of concerns about safety and waste disposal. John McCain has chalked up his refusal to support the very cap-and-trade policies he once championed to "left-wing environmentalist organizations that are not allowing us to move forward with nuclear power."

 

Now, however, that deadlock may be dissolving. In October, John Kerry, the lead sponsor of the Senate cap-and-trade bill, co-authored a New York Times op-ed with Republican Lindsey Graham outlining a possible bipartisan deal that would include offshore drilling and nukes. "Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets," they wrote, endorsing the need to "jettison cumbersome regulations" and help utilities "secure financing for more plants." Graham has hinted that sufficient nuclear incentives could get "at least half a dozen" Republicans on board--allowing a climate bill to squeak through the Senate. As a result, many liberals and environmental groups are gritting their teeth and nervously bracing for a possible compromise. But that raises the question: If Democrats do haggle on nukes, will Republicans actually step up and agree to tackle global warming?

 

This is a compromise which I support, of course.  There’s a saying about not making the perfect the enemy of the good.  Nuclear power is a good option for now, and it will carry us for a long time while we continue research and development into renewable energy sources.  Environmentalists and Luddites need to recognize that we aren’t going to go back to horse-and-buggy without a steep drop in our population and life expectancies.

New chairs

I know I haven’t blogged in a while, but I thought I’d share this little tidbit of information with you all.  There has been a lot of discussion about excess government spending, but despite efforts by our President and Secretary of Defense, the universal culture of fraud, waste, and abuse in the Department of Defense continues unabated.

 

A few months ago our unit needed to fund a trip to another island to conduct a mandatory inspection.  It wasn’t an optional thing – it was required by Air Force Instruction.  The whole trip cost roughly $2,500, but there were still other places we needed to go.  The other trips may have been more expensive, but they were still mandatory.  My leadership wanted to know who was going to pay for it, and from the way they were talking, it was as though the money tree had just died and we were going to have to start picking coconuts and hunting the range chickens for food.

 

Today my replacement was tasked with shopping out 30 chairs with roughly $13,000 to spend.  We’ve reached the end of the fiscal year, you see, and if we don’t spend all the money allocated to us, it’ll be taken away the following fiscal year.

 

So.  We skimp on spending money to do our jobs and then splurge at the end of the fiscal year to buy non-essentials like new chairs, just because we have the money.  I’ve seen this in every unit I’ve been with – Baghdad was the worst.  The system needs to change.  There needs to be better oversight of how money is spent, and if a unit goes on a spending spree in September year in and year out, then there needs to be an audit of their finances to determine if they’re wasting money on frivolous items like $400 chairs while neglecting important mission-related items.

Open letter to President Obama

Mailed this morning:

-----------

The Honorable Barack Hussein Obama

President of the United States

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Mr. President:

Good day. I write to you on the issue of U.S.C. Title 10 § 654, the governing statute regarding the separation of military members for homosexual conduct and UCMJ Article 125, the provision prohibiting “unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex”. During the campaign last year and through the course of your young administration since, you have spoken of your opposition to the first law, typically and from this point forward referred to as “don't ask, don't tell” (DADT). Whereas the UCMJ article in question predates DADT and in fact was indirectly referenced as justification for continuing restrictions on homosexual activity while passing the 1993 law, it should be addressed as part of the larger question with regards to privacy rights for military members, especially in light of the implications of the finding in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

The prohibition on homosexual conduct in the military was incorporated at a time when anti-sodomy laws were prevalent through the United States. Since then, much has changed in the political landscape regarding not only the acceptance of people's right to live as they wish, but also our understanding of what is encompassed in Constitutionally-protected privacy. As Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion for Lawrence, “liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex... [t]he State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the government.” Prior to Lawrence, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) was the established precedent, and therefore DADT was consistent with the Court's opinion on whether or not there existed a right to privacy in the sexual affairs of consenting adults. In Lawrence, however, the Court overruled Bowers and stated that such a right to privacy exists. Indeed, Justice Kennedy also wrote that “[t]he Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”

It has been argued that the military is a special case with unique circumstances and thus that the findings in Lawrence do not apply to it. In fact, the government argued just that in United States v. Marcum (2004) when upon appeal, the Air Force Criminal Court of Appeals considered whether or not, in light of the then-recent Lawrence ruling, Article 125 was unconstitutional on its face. The government argued that Lawrence only applied to civilian conduct and was inapplicable to the military, despite the fact that no such stipulation was made in the majority opinion. However, this was not the finding of the court:

“Constitutional rights identified by the Supreme Court generally apply to members of the military unless by text or scope they are plainly inapplicable. Therefore, we consider the application of Lawrence to Appellant’s conduct. However, we conclude that its application must be addressed in context and not through a facial challenge to Article 125. This view is consistent with the principle that facial challenges to criminal statutes are “best when infrequent” and are “especially to be discouraged.” Sabri v. United States, ___ U.S. __, __, 124 S. Ct. 1941, 1948 (2004). In the military setting, as this case demonstrates, an understanding of military culture and mission cautions against sweeping constitutional pronouncements that may not account for the nuance of military life. This conclusion is also supported by this Court’s general practice of addressing constitutional questions on an as applied basis where national security and constitutional rights are both paramount interests. Further, because Article 125 addresses both forcible and non-forcible sodomy, a facial challenge reaches too far. Clearly, the Lawrence analysis is not at issue with respect to forcible sodomy.”

The court was unwilling to invalidate Article 125 in this case because special circumstances existed in the case which made the member's activity contrary to good order and discipline: namely, that he was engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate. Also, the court determined that the provisions regarding forcible sodomy did not fall under the scope of the Lawrence ruling and thus that Article 125 was not, on its face, unconstitutional. However, other provisions within the UCMJ already address the two uniquely military issues at hand. Article 120 deals with the issue of rape and sexual assault, and Article 134-23 deals with the issue of fraternization. Clearly, from a chain of command stand-point, engaging in sexual activities with a subordinate of the opposite sex would also have an adverse effect on morale and discipline. A specific prohibition on sodomy with subordinates is superfluous and regardless, it is not addressed in Article 125. It is a blanket prohibition on all sodomy. The portions of Article 125 regarding forced sodomy are redundant with relation to Article 120 and are clearly a post hoc rationalization to regulate the private sexual activities of military members with only a vague claim of “good order and discipline” to justify it.

In truth, the findings outlined in DADT could just as easily be applied to any minority group with whom someone could be uncomfortable. A devout Christian may not be comfortable serving next to an atheist or a Muslim, but that Christian has to move beyond that discomfort just as much as the atheist or Muslim would have to move beyond the discomfort of serving next to a devout Christian. Whereas we live in a pluralistic society and have specific prohibitions outlined in the Constitution and in U.S. law against racial and religious discrimination, the military has to accommodate the minorities as well as members for whom the presence of these minorities is disconcerting, just like any other government agency. Aside from religious sensibilities of the majority, there is no case to be made as to why the presence of a homosexual would be bad for unit cohesion. We do not accommodate racists who does not regard a black man as his equal or misogynists who will not take orders from a woman. No reason exists to accommodate homophobes who cannot coexist with someone who does not love the same way they do.

The Congress's claim of exclusive authority in setting standards for admission is specious at best. The Constitution does invest the Congress with the authority to raise armies and provide navies per section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, but they are still subject to other requirements laid out in the Constitution with regards to civil rights and civil liberties, and they are still subject to judicial review. Significant precedent exists stating that American citizens do not check their civil liberties at the door when they enter the military, except to the extent that a valid mission need to do so exists. Justice Ginsburg, in her written concurrence with the majority ruling in Weiss v. United States (1994) stated, “men and women in the Armed Forces do not leave constitutional safeguards and judicial protection behind when they enter military service.” Only when the application of those civil liberties would be harmful to the mission may they be curtailed, and then only to the extent necessary. Advocates of restricting military members' sexual activities have never made a case where private, consensual sexual activities between two clear-headed adults have any mission impact, save for in a war zone, where all sexual activities are prohibited anyway. The United States Army Court of Appeals recognized this in United States v. Bullock (2004) when, using Lawrence as precedent, they ruled that an act of sodomy as defined by Article 125 did not demonstrate any “additional factors relevant solely in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest.” They thus overturned his conviction for an act of sodomy with a civilian woman, since prosecuting him for that was a violation of his civil liberties.

There is no evidence that a person's private sexual activities has any impact on mission readiness or unit cohesion. If anything, it is the military's incessant snooping in our private affairs which is destructive to morale. Our desire to keep our private lives private and out of the all-seeing military's eye does not make us undisciplined or immoral. It simply makes us American.

The rationales for continuing to defend these restrictions in court do not carry any Constitutional validity. Rather than feeling bound to uphold a bad law, would it not be possible to file suit challenging the Constitutionality of the law yourselves? Its legal grounding seems dubious, especially in light of the Lawrence ruling and subsequent findings by military courts that it does apply to military members. DADT seems like it's just waiting to be knocked down by somebody big enough.

One final point of contention: the “Rule of Construction” in U.S.C. Title 10 § 654 paragraph (e) explicitly gives the Secretary of Defense broad authority to determine through regulation whether or not a member should be separated on account of homosexual conduct. To wit:

“(e) Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—

the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.”

It strikes me that if challenging DADT in the courts is too drastic, the SECDEF could simply determine it to be in the best interest of the armed forces to suspend all separations stemming from homosexual conduct until such time as the Congress has fully reviewed the policy and passed legislation changing or even outright repealing the law. If you asked Secretary Gates to make such a finding, would he not do as the Commander in Chief asked? You have the authority under the very statute you say you are bound to uphold to suspend it. Why have you not done so?

I hope that this letter will find you well. As a heterosexual who has had to watch homosexual friends struggle with their hidden identities over the years, it pains me to see them still having to wait for action which was promised to them and which could, in all reality, be carried out today. I hope you will give this full consideration.

Thank you for your time.

Public Healthcare? (follow up)

A follow-up point which I neglected to mention: Medicare provides health
coverage for the elderly and disabled, who typically have higher health care
costs. Again, this is an apples and oranges comparison, since the linked
article compares all private health insurance costs against patient costs
for a program designed for the elderly and disabled.

-----Original Message-----

A friend recently sent me an article to read about public health care.
Names and e-mail addresses have been deleted, but otherwise the exchange is
presented without edits. The link to the article is at the bottom. My
analysis is cursory and actual research is limited. Feel free to dissect my
analysis, as it is incomplete and I would enjoy a more full discussion on
this issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: (CarbonDate)
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:34 AM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: Public Healthcare?

One point I'll concede is that I fail to see how a public option would
actually address the real cost of health care, which is the real problem, as
opposed to simply easing the burden on consumers. I like the public option
where people buy into Medicare (which doesn't appear to be the Obama plan,
but oh well) because of its potential to bridge the gap for people between
jobs (which there are a lot of these days), provide an affordable
alternative for people who don't qualify for Medicaid, and provide a new
revenue source for Medicare without raising taxes.

That said, I would like to discuss the article further. A couple of points:

1) The out-of-pocket expenditure change isn't something that happened in a
vacuum. There's a reason for it. That the article doesn't discuss the
reason leads me to believe that it's inconvenient for the point the author
is trying to make. Could it be that out-of-pocket health care is no longer
something average Americans can afford, where as it was back in 1970?

2) "Only 35%"? In nine years? Am I the only one that thinks that's a
rather sizable increase?

3) Comparing the rise of out-of-pocket costs to the rise in total Medicare
expenses is apples and oranges, and in any case, the reason is easy to
deduct: Medicare likely has a lower deductible than most private insurance
plans. That's just speculation, of course.

4) "From a policy perspective, this would suggest that the key to lowering
costs is to let consumers control more of their own resources - that when
they have the freedom and incentive to pursue value, they know how to keep
costs down."

Translation: "Let them eat cake." You're right, the article does speak for
itself.

Seriously, is he suggesting that all health care be paid for out of pocket?
Who can actually afford that?

5) I do have a problem with an author citing his own "study" as an
authoritative source. At a minimum, he should explain where he compiled his
numbers from. The fact that the study was published by the Pacific Research
Institute (of which he is a senior fellow) doesn't really lend it any
additional credibility; this is an agenda-driven group. I'm not saying the
numbers are necessarily inaccurate, but it's not a scientific study. They
found a way to make the numbers work in their favor, and even then they have
to concede that out-of-pocket health care costs have risen 35% over the last
nine years.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute

A former senior speechwriter in the Bush administration is, of course, free
to write articles about health care and can even contribute constructively
to the discussion, but he shouldn't cite himself as his source, especially
since a layman like me can easily point out that he's a political animal,
not a public health care expert.

But at least you know I read the article ;).

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:01 AM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Cc: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Public Healthcare?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480067

This article speaks for itself.

Public Healthcare?

A friend recently sent me an article to read about public health care.
Names and e-mail addresses have been deleted, but otherwise the exchange is
presented without edits. The link to the article is at the bottom. My
analysis is cursory and actual research is limited. Feel free to dissect my
analysis, as it is incomplete and I would enjoy a more full discussion on
this issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: (CarbonDate)
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:34 AM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: Public Healthcare?

One point I'll concede is that I fail to see how a public option would
actually address the real cost of health care, which is the real problem, as
opposed to simply easing the burden on consumers. I like the public option
where people buy into Medicare (which doesn't appear to be the Obama plan,
but oh well) because of its potential to bridge the gap for people between
jobs (which there are a lot of these days), provide an affordable
alternative for people who don't qualify for Medicaid, and provide a new
revenue source for Medicare without raising taxes.

That said, I would like to discuss the article further. A couple of points:

1) The out-of-pocket expenditure change isn't something that happened in a
vacuum. There's a reason for it. That the article doesn't discuss the
reason leads me to believe that it's inconvenient for the point the author
is trying to make. Could it be that out-of-pocket health care is no longer
something average Americans can afford, where as it was back in 1970?

2) "Only 35%"? In nine years? Am I the only one that thinks that's a
rather sizable increase?

3) Comparing the rise of out-of-pocket costs to the rise in total Medicare
expenses is apples and oranges, and in any case, the reason is easy to
deduct: Medicare likely has a lower deductible than most private insurance
plans. That's just speculation, of course.

4) "From a policy perspective, this would suggest that the key to lowering
costs is to let consumers control more of their own resources - that when
they have the freedom and incentive to pursue value, they know how to keep
costs down."

Translation: "Let them eat cake." You're right, the article does speak for
itself.

Seriously, is he suggesting that all health care be paid for out of pocket?
Who can actually afford that?

5) I do have a problem with an author citing his own "study" as an
authoritative source. At a minimum, he should explain where he compiled his
numbers from. The fact that the study was published by the Pacific Research
Institute (of which he is a senior fellow) doesn't really lend it any
additional credibility; this is an agenda-driven group. I'm not saying the
numbers are necessarily inaccurate, but it's not a scientific study. They
found a way to make the numbers work in their favor, and even then they have
to concede that out-of-pocket health care costs have risen 35% over the last
nine years.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute

A former senior speechwriter in the Bush administration is, of course, free
to write articles about health care and can even contribute constructively
to the discussion, but he shouldn't cite himself as his source, especially
since a layman like me can easily point out that he's a political animal,
not a public health care expert.

But at least you know I read the article ;).

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:01 AM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Cc: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Public Healthcare?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480067

This article speaks for itself.

Arlen Specter and why the Republican party is dying

As most of you have heard by now, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has announced his intention to become Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA). This has had a predictable reaction among D.C. circles: Republicans hate him and Democrats love him. Sen. Specter clearly read the writing on the wall and saw that he was going to lose in the Republican primary because the modern Republican party has no room for moderates such as himself. In age when elected officials are kissing the ring of a radio talk show host, the Republican party is clearly in dire straits.

Sen. Mitch McConnell stated that this increasingly unipolar political landscape is bad for the country, and I would have to agree. However, it is Republican policies which have pushed the nation in this direction. The answer isn't for voters to throw the Republicans a bone and vote a few of them in to hold back the changes Democrats will bring -- changes which, by the way, the American people are voting for in large majorities -- but rather for the Republican party to go back to the drawing board and come up with some better ideas. As it stands, the Republicans have been absolutely pathetic since 2005. The marginalizing of the Republican party didn't begin with Hurricane Katrina -- that's just when it was solidified. It began with Terry Schiavo.

The nation watched national Republican officials all the way up to the President of the United States directly inject themselves into a decision which should have been a private family affair: whether or not to keep alive by artificial means a woman who had been in a permanent vegetative state for fifteen years. Prior to that, Republicans had held the nation in fear over terrorism and managed to manipulate a portion of the population over the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage issue tied in with abortion on a broader "bedroom police" platform. Not wanting to dispense with a winning strategy, the next natural step was to inject themselves into life or death medical decisions other than abortion. Whether or not it was right to pull the feeding tube of Terry Schiavo is not, and never was the issue. The issue was whether this was a decision for her family or for Washington politicians. At that moment, all the fear-mongering about socialism with regard to universal health care lost its bite. The Republicans, not the Democrats, were the ones injecting themselves into private medical decisions. The Republicans, not the Democrats, were the ones telling people who they could and could not love. The Republicans, not the Democrats, were the ones telling women that if they had their way, they would have to carry all their children to term, regardless of their circumstances.

And now, as it turns out, the Republicans were the ones rounding people up and putting them in camps to be tortured. Not for intel purposes, but for propoganda purposes. They wanted somebody to tell them that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in order to justify invading Iraq. The Republicans were the ones listening to our phone calls without warrants. It goes on and on: the Republicans became the party of Big Brother. They became the party of aggressive war. They became the party of torture. They became the party of homophobia, xenophobia, and Pax Americana. They became the party of a nationalist political philosophy which good manners dictate we not mention in civil debate. So I won't. Their actions speak for themselves, and we need not look to the past to find a label to which to attach these philosophies. We need only call them what they are: the Republican party platform. And these days, people understand well enough what that means in order to reject it out of hand. Republicans, when calling Democrats socialists, only serve to stir up their fringe base. The label doesn't have any affect on people's perceptions of the Democratic party platform. If anything, it only serves to soften the image of socialism in the minds of Americans. So when the Republicans loosely accuse the Obama administration of "tyranny" for the heinous act of governing as they promised to during a Presidential campaign they won by sweeping margins, it really does sound like a classic case of projection.

Republicans, if they wish to survive, need to denounce the policies of the Bush administration forcefully and declare a new day for the Republican party. As it stands, they seem to believe that the current political climate is simply a passing storm rather than the sea of change it actually represents. They need to do this for the good of America, because they're not entirely wrong: single party rule does make for bad government. Just not as bad as Republicans do right now. If they cannot change, then they need to dissolve and allow a new party to take their place. Right now they're in their last throes, and their choice is simple: evolve or die.

The 20th century is over. America is moving into a new day. Perhaps the Republican party has simply outlived its usefulness. But if a viable conservative party does not soon emerge to take its place, then a party which sits to the left of the Democratic party will. Then we really will begin moving toward socialism. It's incumbent upon conservatives to find ways to make capitalism continue to work in the 21st century, not to simply assert that it does. And they need to give up on their imperial ambitions. The future lies in global partnership, not world domination. It's not just the pragmatic way: it's the American way.

The future is leaving the Republican party behind.

Cell phones are tracking devices

And, according to the Obama Department of Justice, should be used as such.

A bit of context: the actual brief requesting that law enforcement officials not be required to show probable cause before seizing cell phone records tracking your movement was filed by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, a Bush holdover who has refused to tender her resignation under the new administration. President Obama has not seen fit to terminate her, despite the fact that her philosophies are quite divergent from his own. As such, by choosing to keep her on, he is responsible for any briefs she files. Her most notorious case has been the prosecution of Tommy Chong for shipping drug paraphernalia through the mail. Now she wants access to your where-abouts by tapping into your cell phone records. Awesome! Somebody's been watching too many movies:



But if you're a law-abiding citizen, you've nothing to worry about, right? Unless, of course, you're engaged in constitutionally-protected free speech which upsets the establishment, such as an anti-war demonstration or a tea party demonstration. Say they want a list of names of people at that demonstration. Anybody with a cell phone (which is most people these days) can be tracked. Say they start a police riot and want to press trumped-up charges against anybody at that demonstration, both to discredit the demonstration and to send a message to anybody who gets any ideas about standing against them. You see where this is going.

The real people who would need to be concerned would be the organizers of such a rally. Some of these things can get quite large, and without some sort of organized presence behind them, can get unwieldy, potentially chaotic. What better way to communicate than by cell phone? Well, I'd recommend purchasing a pre-paid cell phone. They can track that, but they'd have to know who they're tracking. Some require you to register in order to use it; these are a bad deal and defeat the purpose. You want use of the technology without having to have your movements tracked. For your average Joe Protestor? Leave your cell phone at home, or else pull the battery if you want to keep it on hand in case of an emergency. Even if you turn it off, the phone still transmits and receives signals. Only pulling the battery stops the signals.

Best bet for those who don't actually have a need for a mobile phone but just keep it out of convenience: get a land line. It's cheaper, and these days if you really need a cell phone for a specific purpose, you can pick up a cheap disposable pre-paid phone for $30. It's what I do any time I go back to the states. I've already discontinued my GuamCell service and will be picking up a land line when I get back to Guam.

That's a tip for activists, not average folks who don't represent a threat to the status quo.