According to Thomas Ricks, after fighting so hard for its pet war the Bush Administration began to disengage, most notably Secretary Rumsfeld. But so too did the American people, as in 2005 and 2006 the news waxed monotonous and depressing. Even reporters succumbed to 'attention deficit disorder' in recording the incredible second battle for Fallujah. Although to be fair, journalists have taken an unprecedented pounding in Iraq and have become increasingly restricted in their movements... so much so that all the Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran could do was to write a 'scather' about the Green Zone called Imperial Life in the Emerald City before throwing in the towel and quitting Oz.
The bulky Fiasco, at 450 or so pages, is not exactly a page turner. It is unpleasant to revisit the selling and whitewashing of the war. But in my opinion, it would be a tragedy if after going from 75% to 35% approval for the war, Americans do no show an introspective spirit.
Ricks does a decent job describing the people and events that led to war, but this is not new and serves really to set the context. He assigns blame where it is due, but does not go overboard and generally develops his own credibility as an observer.
The important stuff is found in the second half of the book which is essentially the definitive military history of the Iraq war from 2003-2005. Be that as it may, the second half of the book is not particularly energizing either unless you are a military buff. It focuses on the question of strategy versus tactics and creating an accurate portrayal of US forces in action at all levels from the enlisted to junior officers to generals.
"So, what does this highly acclaimed book have to offer?" you ask.
I'll start by telling what it does not offer. It does not offer a solution or a prediction. Ricks does not claim to be a middle east expert. As a military journalist, he does not waste his time with the Iraqi population where access is limited and risky. On the other hand access to US military personnel is unprecedented and this is where he shines. He is essentially trying to download in a condensed and digestible format reams and reams of information he has accumulated. So Fiasco is intentionally one-sided in that it is only about the US military and not about Iraqi or other actors. In my edition, which was published a year after the first edition came out, Ricks writes a postscript in which he expresses satisfaction that the book was well received in military circles as an accurate account. He is proud that a battalion commander thanked him for "saying publicly what we've been saying privately" and a Defense official told him it was as though Ricks were listening in on the conversations held in his office for three years (and you thought it was only the NSA that does that).
In my view, Ricks' most important contribution is to contrast successful units and their commanders with unsuccessful ones. "There were successful ones?" you say. Yes, this came a surprise to me as well, but there were. For example David Petraeus, James Mattis and H.R. McMaster, who interestingly enough all hold PhD's, led successful operations in various corners of Iraq. I learned the following about them.
Petraeus, an army general who now needs no introduction, was instrumental in the early stages of the occupation in saving Mosul from the type of violence that would be expected of one of Iraq's largest and most mixed cities. His counterinsurgency hearts-and-minds approach was contrasted with the heavy handed tactics of the commander and forces that succeeded him but did not succeed.
The marines and special forces were generally better suited to counterinsurgency operations than regular army forces. James Mattis was a marines general who understood very early on the type of strategy necessary to succeed. "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet" he told his troops. Mattis is an unusual combination of a gritty warrior and an intellectual eccentric. In one press conference he said, "You know its a hell of a hoot. I like brawling." But even among the military's ivory tower echelon he stands out as "one of the most urbane and polished" according to another phd-general, "he can quote Homer as well as Sun Tzu". Reportedly he carries a copy of Meditations by Marcus Aurelius on all his deployments.
Mattis prepared carefully for his deployment to al Anbar in late 2003. He told his troops not to wear sunglasses when talking to Iraqis, encouraged them to grow mustaches to fit in better and told them not to overreact to religious leaders who blast the occupiers in their weekly sermons. He was all about cultural sensitivity. Furthermore he gave his officers a thousand pages of reading on a broad range of subjects prior to going in.
At a more junior level there was the army colonel H.R. McMaster. His assault on Tal Afar, which might have been another Fallujah, will go down as a textbook counterinsurgency operation in military annals. Indeed an internal review ranked this episode on top and David Petraeus has modeled his Baghdad strategy in the 'surge' on it. McMaster's soldiers were under orders to "treat detainees professionally" and he visited every regiment to drill this message in. This is not only humane but part of classic counterinsurgency doctrine. The goal is not to kill and capture the enemy. 'The Iraqi people are the prize.' Like Mattis, McMaster gave his officers a reading list which included Arabian history and culture as well as counterinsurgency doctrine. (On an interesting side note, he also banned PowerPoint briefings.) McMaster dismantled the insurgency in Tal Afar patiently and humanely because he understood that he was not fighting for soil, but in order to win the residents over.
The thing that I learned from these three commanders is that success is not necessarily precluded. I have at times given in to a fatalist attitude towards the ability of our troops. Especially at times when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke or with the killings in Haditha and elsewhere. These episodes seem to say that our young men and women are in over their heads and the strain will inevitably bring the more malevolent urges to the surface. But I no longer see it that way. Mr. Ricks has changed my mind. Good leadership can in fact prevail over the 'bad apples'. Among other things, I read Fiasco as an indictment of the abuses that went on and the failure to punish commanders. Nevertheless, it will take more than good commanders to succeed in winning over Iraqis at this point. Unfortunately it probably requires more troops.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Jarhead
Our local branch of Borders recently had a reduced price bonanza. I picked up a couple of items that aroused my curiosity. For example I grabbed an audio book entitled "Destined for Destiny: The unauthorized autobiography of George W. Bush". Unfortunately it was a real dud, and I am wondering how best to discard the thing.
But the book Jarhead by Anthony Swofford was bound for better things as I had already heard critical acclaim for it. It is basically a war memoir from a marine who fought in the first Gulf War. He was part of a highly skilled sniper and reconnaissance unit.
His account is stunning for a number of reasons. Foremost is his dead honesty. In his first encounter with the enemy he describes in great detail how he urinated in his pants. He pulls no punches, whether they are aimed at himself or his family, his unit, the marines, the legacy of a dead platoon-mate or their family military pedigrees. Thus in some way the book is an angry rant, but that would be an oversimplification. Swofford does a fine job of reconstructing the complexity of emotion involved with being on the front lines of a war. There is fear, doubt, cowardice, professional pride, machismo, boredom, brutality, the need to be loved, loneliness and more.
Another striking feature of his story is its very vulgarity. The book brims with bodily fluids, from sweat to urine to vomit to semen (blood is strangely absent). Swofford's marines are brutal and vulgar killers - they are not heroes but grunts. They do not do things because they believe in ideals, but for their own selfish reasons - maybe because they enjoy brutality as a means of exacting revenge for brutality of their own training. Much of the time they are drunk and spoiling for a (non-lethal) fight either with each other or with local American civilians.
An odd moment comes just before the major onslaught. Facing the possibility of death, their commander tells them to destroy anything among their personal effects that their family would not like seeing. This spurs them to build a bonfire out of their collective porn and salacious correspondence.
When the war finally comes it is over before it begins. Just when their initial reluctance and fear have subsided, they have a thirst for action. Instead they collect the weapons from myriad Iraqi corpses and discharge them on a few broken enemy vehicles. In the days that follow, one of Swofford's platoon-mates returns incessantly to a corpse he has particularly enmity for and proceeds bayonet or otherwise defile it until the author can no longer bear it and buries the hapless Iraqi.
It is strange to think that this is the story of what is widely perceived as a just war. A war to protect the national sovereignty of Kuwait from a brutal megalomaniac. This is a war in which everything was done right. The elder Bush was honest with the American people: he told them that war was justified on humanitarian grounds but also to protect the oil supply in the Persian Gulf. Bush first exhausted diplomatic channels and then worked hard to build a true multi-national coalition. To this day Kuwait hosts the most pro-American population in the Arab world and the war is a model for upholding the security of nations and international law.
Swofford has little to say about all this except tangentially. At the end of the day, his purpose is not to persuade but to recount one man's experience as honestly as possible - as opposed to the contrived stories told in bars by jarhead braggarts, or the whitewashed tales of heroism fitted for public consumption by the media. In his own words, his story is "neither true nor false but what I know".
This book is a good starting point from which to ruminate about the state of our fighting forces. This at a time when the military is stretched to the breaking point and its reputation tarnished. One wonders and marvels at what Swofford's tale would have looked like under the younger Bush's command. And what about gays and women in the military? Should we have mandatory military service for all healthy adults or should we reduce military recruiting?
But the book Jarhead by Anthony Swofford was bound for better things as I had already heard critical acclaim for it. It is basically a war memoir from a marine who fought in the first Gulf War. He was part of a highly skilled sniper and reconnaissance unit.
His account is stunning for a number of reasons. Foremost is his dead honesty. In his first encounter with the enemy he describes in great detail how he urinated in his pants. He pulls no punches, whether they are aimed at himself or his family, his unit, the marines, the legacy of a dead platoon-mate or their family military pedigrees. Thus in some way the book is an angry rant, but that would be an oversimplification. Swofford does a fine job of reconstructing the complexity of emotion involved with being on the front lines of a war. There is fear, doubt, cowardice, professional pride, machismo, boredom, brutality, the need to be loved, loneliness and more.
Another striking feature of his story is its very vulgarity. The book brims with bodily fluids, from sweat to urine to vomit to semen (blood is strangely absent). Swofford's marines are brutal and vulgar killers - they are not heroes but grunts. They do not do things because they believe in ideals, but for their own selfish reasons - maybe because they enjoy brutality as a means of exacting revenge for brutality of their own training. Much of the time they are drunk and spoiling for a (non-lethal) fight either with each other or with local American civilians.
An odd moment comes just before the major onslaught. Facing the possibility of death, their commander tells them to destroy anything among their personal effects that their family would not like seeing. This spurs them to build a bonfire out of their collective porn and salacious correspondence.
When the war finally comes it is over before it begins. Just when their initial reluctance and fear have subsided, they have a thirst for action. Instead they collect the weapons from myriad Iraqi corpses and discharge them on a few broken enemy vehicles. In the days that follow, one of Swofford's platoon-mates returns incessantly to a corpse he has particularly enmity for and proceeds bayonet or otherwise defile it until the author can no longer bear it and buries the hapless Iraqi.
It is strange to think that this is the story of what is widely perceived as a just war. A war to protect the national sovereignty of Kuwait from a brutal megalomaniac. This is a war in which everything was done right. The elder Bush was honest with the American people: he told them that war was justified on humanitarian grounds but also to protect the oil supply in the Persian Gulf. Bush first exhausted diplomatic channels and then worked hard to build a true multi-national coalition. To this day Kuwait hosts the most pro-American population in the Arab world and the war is a model for upholding the security of nations and international law.
Swofford has little to say about all this except tangentially. At the end of the day, his purpose is not to persuade but to recount one man's experience as honestly as possible - as opposed to the contrived stories told in bars by jarhead braggarts, or the whitewashed tales of heroism fitted for public consumption by the media. In his own words, his story is "neither true nor false but what I know".
This book is a good starting point from which to ruminate about the state of our fighting forces. This at a time when the military is stretched to the breaking point and its reputation tarnished. One wonders and marvels at what Swofford's tale would have looked like under the younger Bush's command. And what about gays and women in the military? Should we have mandatory military service for all healthy adults or should we reduce military recruiting?
Emasculated Legislature
Although I'll admit some satisfaction at the steady slide that President Bush's approval ratings have taken during the past few years, it puzzles and irks me that Congress' ratings are yet lower. Not that I am a raving Congressional groupie, mind you, but it does not seem fair. The latest CBS/NYT poll puts Congress at 26% and President Bush at 30%. If we are to believe that Iraq is a major issue, then we are failing to give credit where credit is due.
Thus I was relieved to finally see a column sympathizing with rather than beating on Congress. Glenn Smith writes that beneath the frustration "runs a contempt for the institution of Congress that presents a grave threat to democracy". Since 1990 approval ratings have only twice been above 50%. Congress is portrayed as an "inept community".
We are merely looking in the mirror. The Congress is but a pale reflection of the inept community that is the American electorate. And this community, as it complains about the failings of Congress is engaged subconsciously in self-flagellation. We lurch violently through a world we do not care to understand.
Pardon me if I cannot recall the last time that a strong dose of cynicism served as a useful tonic. If you have a pebble in your shoe, rather than reflecting upon the imperfections of footwear one might considering removing the shoe and hunting for the irritant.
Cynicism about Congress is driven by excessive influence from private lobbies and partisan districting. I'm sure you have heard this rant before, but few rants are as true and attract adherents from as many parts of the political spectrum. Why not ask which Congressional leaders are pushing for change of the lobbying laws and support their efforts, regardless of what party the belong to? A few names spring to mind, but this does not seem to be a resounding issue for Americans.
Concerning Congress' inability to curb the President's proclivity to work his personal insecurities out on the world stage, we would do well to empower it to do so. No Congress will take bold action when its ratings are in the mid 20s. Our senators and representatives are cowed by nothing other than our own cynicism.
Thus I was relieved to finally see a column sympathizing with rather than beating on Congress. Glenn Smith writes that beneath the frustration "runs a contempt for the institution of Congress that presents a grave threat to democracy". Since 1990 approval ratings have only twice been above 50%. Congress is portrayed as an "inept community".
We are merely looking in the mirror. The Congress is but a pale reflection of the inept community that is the American electorate. And this community, as it complains about the failings of Congress is engaged subconsciously in self-flagellation. We lurch violently through a world we do not care to understand.
Pardon me if I cannot recall the last time that a strong dose of cynicism served as a useful tonic. If you have a pebble in your shoe, rather than reflecting upon the imperfections of footwear one might considering removing the shoe and hunting for the irritant.
Cynicism about Congress is driven by excessive influence from private lobbies and partisan districting. I'm sure you have heard this rant before, but few rants are as true and attract adherents from as many parts of the political spectrum. Why not ask which Congressional leaders are pushing for change of the lobbying laws and support their efforts, regardless of what party the belong to? A few names spring to mind, but this does not seem to be a resounding issue for Americans.
Concerning Congress' inability to curb the President's proclivity to work his personal insecurities out on the world stage, we would do well to empower it to do so. No Congress will take bold action when its ratings are in the mid 20s. Our senators and representatives are cowed by nothing other than our own cynicism.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
The Genocide Olympics
Raphael Lemkin died with his boots on, August 28th, 1959.
A NY Times headline summed him up "Raphael Lemkin, Genocide Foe, Dies: International Law Professor Instrumental in Pushing Genocide Convention Through U.N." His obituary read "in lieu of flowers please contribute to United Nations fund of your choice." Even from his coffin the man who coined the term "genocide" refused to rest. His heart stopped while waiting in the office of Milton H. Blow for a chance to make one further bid of advocacy in his relentless 11 year campaign to persuade the US Congress to ratify the Genocide Convention.
If Lemkin were alive today, he would probably have some sharp words for many of today's advocacy groups. When the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he came out against it. He felt that it put the cart before the horse. Most of his family died in the Holocaust and he felt that international law as a practical matter should focus on the worst crimes first. Focus on Darfur not saving the seals, he might say.
If one man heeds Lemkin's call, it is Professor Eric Reeves at Smith College. He has spent years documenting the tragedies that have unfolded in the Sudan and his website has become the go-to place for "analysis, research and advocacy".
In December, 2006 he unleashed his "shame China" program which aims to brand the 2008 olympics in Beijing as the "Genocide Olympics" unless China ceases to play the role of genocide enabler-in-chief. His point is that Beijing is not going to change its relationship with Khartoum unless it feels it has something to lose - something it cares deeply about. To make the campaign international in scope he is looking for translators who can write well in Chinese, Arabic, French, Spanish, etc.
Not unlike the 1919 Boston molasses flood, international activism has slowly gained momentum and is beginning to resemble the measures taken against South African Apartheid in the 1980s. Celebrities like Don Cheadle, Angelina Jolie and George Clooney have visited the region. The US Senate has petitioned China's President Hu. Sam Brownback, John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, George Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Durbin... the list of advocates is long and bipartisan.
Grass roots divestment is playing a large role too. Canadian, Swedish and Austrian oil companies pulled their operations out a few years ago. But oil companies from China, Malaysia and India were ready to take their place. The biggest targets of divestment have been the Chinese companies PetroChina and CNPC. The Swiss power generation company ABB was recently removed from the divestment list after it announced a pullout. Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway is, as PetroChina's largest shareholder, an ancillary target.
Seven state legislatures (NJ, IL, OR, ME, CT, CA, VT), five cities (San Francisco, Providence, New Haven, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) and over thirty universities have divested or approved divestment plans. The Sudan Divestment Taskforce maintains an interactive divestment map on their website from which you can see your state's level of involvement. My state (Georgia) is colored yellow, which means "no state action". We have one dot on the map corresponding to Emory University. Embarassingly enough, Alabama has two.
I wonder what's going on in other countries. Are Canada and the EU pro-active?
Many people, myself included, don't like being buttonholed by hysterical activists. But what's the big deal, should the subject of international relations come up, if you say "hey, did you hear about that Genocide Olympics thing? - I wonder if it will work". Indeed, its just crazy enough that it might.
A NY Times headline summed him up "Raphael Lemkin, Genocide Foe, Dies: International Law Professor Instrumental in Pushing Genocide Convention Through U.N." His obituary read "in lieu of flowers please contribute to United Nations fund of your choice." Even from his coffin the man who coined the term "genocide" refused to rest. His heart stopped while waiting in the office of Milton H. Blow for a chance to make one further bid of advocacy in his relentless 11 year campaign to persuade the US Congress to ratify the Genocide Convention.
If Lemkin were alive today, he would probably have some sharp words for many of today's advocacy groups. When the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he came out against it. He felt that it put the cart before the horse. Most of his family died in the Holocaust and he felt that international law as a practical matter should focus on the worst crimes first. Focus on Darfur not saving the seals, he might say.
If one man heeds Lemkin's call, it is Professor Eric Reeves at Smith College. He has spent years documenting the tragedies that have unfolded in the Sudan and his website has become the go-to place for "analysis, research and advocacy".
In December, 2006 he unleashed his "shame China" program which aims to brand the 2008 olympics in Beijing as the "Genocide Olympics" unless China ceases to play the role of genocide enabler-in-chief. His point is that Beijing is not going to change its relationship with Khartoum unless it feels it has something to lose - something it cares deeply about. To make the campaign international in scope he is looking for translators who can write well in Chinese, Arabic, French, Spanish, etc.
Not unlike the 1919 Boston molasses flood, international activism has slowly gained momentum and is beginning to resemble the measures taken against South African Apartheid in the 1980s. Celebrities like Don Cheadle, Angelina Jolie and George Clooney have visited the region. The US Senate has petitioned China's President Hu. Sam Brownback, John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, George Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Durbin... the list of advocates is long and bipartisan.
Grass roots divestment is playing a large role too. Canadian, Swedish and Austrian oil companies pulled their operations out a few years ago. But oil companies from China, Malaysia and India were ready to take their place. The biggest targets of divestment have been the Chinese companies PetroChina and CNPC. The Swiss power generation company ABB was recently removed from the divestment list after it announced a pullout. Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway is, as PetroChina's largest shareholder, an ancillary target.
Seven state legislatures (NJ, IL, OR, ME, CT, CA, VT), five cities (San Francisco, Providence, New Haven, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) and over thirty universities have divested or approved divestment plans. The Sudan Divestment Taskforce maintains an interactive divestment map on their website from which you can see your state's level of involvement. My state (Georgia) is colored yellow, which means "no state action". We have one dot on the map corresponding to Emory University. Embarassingly enough, Alabama has two.
I wonder what's going on in other countries. Are Canada and the EU pro-active?
Many people, myself included, don't like being buttonholed by hysterical activists. But what's the big deal, should the subject of international relations come up, if you say "hey, did you hear about that Genocide Olympics thing? - I wonder if it will work". Indeed, its just crazy enough that it might.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
KIA Sportage - mind numbing marketing
The goal of marketing is to generate consumer interest in a product. Really powerful marketing can drive sales even when the product is not that good. Poor marketing may allow a great product to languish on the shelf. Advertisements that are too clever for their own good (think Superbowl) may succeed in gaining consumer attention but fail to establish a remembered link to the producer or product that actually generates sales. What about advertisements that are too dumb for their own good? The worst marketing not only fails to get consumers excited about a product, but makes them detest it.
Hello KIA Sportage.
This rather unremarkable SUV was added to the overflowing SUV pool in 2005. What is remarkable is the same irritating TV commercial has been running right through to the present. The add shows someone driving the vehicle and they get out and throw the keys to someone else who drives and gets out and so on. The people are chosen to represent all walks of life. My problem is actually the soundtrack. Others are also annoyed and confused by the add- see a trail in the archives of blogger Samantha Burns . While there are some interesting jabs (including silliness of the name Sportage), no one seems to share my beef with the soundtrack.
“Start hav-ing a... great life
It’s about living with... in-spi-ration
Start hav-ing a... great life
I don’t take it for granted man”
The jangley thrumming song is by a real musician - "Goat". You can listen to a sample at Amazon - check it out
Or watch the whole sorry commercial if it doesn't drive you crazy - stupid ad
Now on this other blog site, I found some more material relevant to the soundtrack - a pointed critique of the song along with some mixed commentary/debate - Adjab
What I find insufferable is not really the car or the musician. Its the hubris of Kia telling me that my life is not great. No matter who you are and what you do, you're just sleep-walking through your existence, reminiscent of the illusionary lives depicted in The Matrix. But the equivalent of the red pill in that movie is apparently owning a Kia Sportage. Start having a great life. Its all been a sham until now. Fortunately Kia is here and if you simply acknowledging the importance of the Sportage you can really start living.
At the end of the commercial, the Kia voice comes on and tells you "the SUV with everything, is now for everyone." You have got to be F#$&@g kidding me! Did I mention hubris?
Even accepting that in America the foundation of modern life is, in fact, the power of personal independence and self-expression through automobile ownership (talk about taking it for granted man) somehow all other zillion SUVs out there since Willys circa WWII Jeep are missing something. Most car, and other product, ads tell you your life will be better if you have whatever it is. (Those stupid Enzyte commercials come to mind) But typically they stop short of implying that you've been duped and life only begins when you buy whatever it is.
What is it about cars in particular? Likely a bigger influence on your daily quality of life is breakfeast. As bombastic and zany as Cocoa Puffs cereal ad is, it doesn't tell you it is the key to a great life. It just says that it is really chocolately and really crunchy and whoa nelly if you don't get a sugar buzz better check your pulse. Cheerios makes the point that if you don't fuel up, you'll go kaput later on in the day, but it sells itself as a great way to start your day "part of a balanced breakfeast," not as some elusive secret to bliss on earth. What would the Dali Llahma have to say about the Sportage and greatness in life I wonder?
I'm convinced that however much my life is less than great, in large part it is because of pervasive societal marketing telling me so. My life would seem much more great if I wasn't bombarded with the idea that there is always something missing, something essential, something that could be captured via economics, either directly like buying the latest gia-normous sandwich at Burger King, gee-whiz cell phone that also does your laundry, or 18 foot flat screen high definition TV; or indirectly like achieving a certain social status thus opening the way for exclusive and/or premium activities/products/services - valued largely because not everyone can have them. In any event, I'm constantly presented with glossy images of the puzzle pieces necessary for a better life, with no thought to impacts to the rest of the world that might be related to my acquisition of such pieces.
What is depressing in the large scheme of things is how marketing helps drive what people take for granted. It erodes the idea that we all have to make tradeoffs everyday and there are not always easy solutions to problems and things aren't great all the time. It elevates the trivial to the forefront of consciousness. And it just makes my head hurt. My life would be just a tiny bit more great if the stupid Kia ad would go blow up in the faces of whoever wrote it. Ironically, the song by Goat is apparently about the non-trivial; its about people and family and life and death. Too bad it was sold into marketing slavery. I will plead temporary marketing induced insanity when I end up on trial for taking a baseball bat to the next Sportage I see.
Hello KIA Sportage.
This rather unremarkable SUV was added to the overflowing SUV pool in 2005. What is remarkable is the same irritating TV commercial has been running right through to the present. The add shows someone driving the vehicle and they get out and throw the keys to someone else who drives and gets out and so on. The people are chosen to represent all walks of life. My problem is actually the soundtrack. Others are also annoyed and confused by the add- see a trail in the archives of blogger Samantha Burns . While there are some interesting jabs (including silliness of the name Sportage), no one seems to share my beef with the soundtrack.
“Start hav-ing a... great life
It’s about living with... in-spi-ration
Start hav-ing a... great life
I don’t take it for granted man”
The jangley thrumming song is by a real musician - "Goat". You can listen to a sample at Amazon - check it out
Or watch the whole sorry commercial if it doesn't drive you crazy - stupid ad
Now on this other blog site, I found some more material relevant to the soundtrack - a pointed critique of the song along with some mixed commentary/debate - Adjab
What I find insufferable is not really the car or the musician. Its the hubris of Kia telling me that my life is not great. No matter who you are and what you do, you're just sleep-walking through your existence, reminiscent of the illusionary lives depicted in The Matrix. But the equivalent of the red pill in that movie is apparently owning a Kia Sportage. Start having a great life. Its all been a sham until now. Fortunately Kia is here and if you simply acknowledging the importance of the Sportage you can really start living.
At the end of the commercial, the Kia voice comes on and tells you "the SUV with everything, is now for everyone." You have got to be F#$&@g kidding me! Did I mention hubris?
Even accepting that in America the foundation of modern life is, in fact, the power of personal independence and self-expression through automobile ownership (talk about taking it for granted man) somehow all other zillion SUVs out there since Willys circa WWII Jeep are missing something. Most car, and other product, ads tell you your life will be better if you have whatever it is. (Those stupid Enzyte commercials come to mind) But typically they stop short of implying that you've been duped and life only begins when you buy whatever it is.
What is it about cars in particular? Likely a bigger influence on your daily quality of life is breakfeast. As bombastic and zany as Cocoa Puffs cereal ad is, it doesn't tell you it is the key to a great life. It just says that it is really chocolately and really crunchy and whoa nelly if you don't get a sugar buzz better check your pulse. Cheerios makes the point that if you don't fuel up, you'll go kaput later on in the day, but it sells itself as a great way to start your day "part of a balanced breakfeast," not as some elusive secret to bliss on earth. What would the Dali Llahma have to say about the Sportage and greatness in life I wonder?
I'm convinced that however much my life is less than great, in large part it is because of pervasive societal marketing telling me so. My life would seem much more great if I wasn't bombarded with the idea that there is always something missing, something essential, something that could be captured via economics, either directly like buying the latest gia-normous sandwich at Burger King, gee-whiz cell phone that also does your laundry, or 18 foot flat screen high definition TV; or indirectly like achieving a certain social status thus opening the way for exclusive and/or premium activities/products/services - valued largely because not everyone can have them. In any event, I'm constantly presented with glossy images of the puzzle pieces necessary for a better life, with no thought to impacts to the rest of the world that might be related to my acquisition of such pieces.
What is depressing in the large scheme of things is how marketing helps drive what people take for granted. It erodes the idea that we all have to make tradeoffs everyday and there are not always easy solutions to problems and things aren't great all the time. It elevates the trivial to the forefront of consciousness. And it just makes my head hurt. My life would be just a tiny bit more great if the stupid Kia ad would go blow up in the faces of whoever wrote it. Ironically, the song by Goat is apparently about the non-trivial; its about people and family and life and death. Too bad it was sold into marketing slavery. I will plead temporary marketing induced insanity when I end up on trial for taking a baseball bat to the next Sportage I see.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Bush's Dr. Jekyl and the Prius' Mr. Hyde
For the love of turning things on their head, lets explore a coupla alternative themes, starting with the president. 
He has come a long way since those heady days in 2005 when he was re-inaugurated, The Discovery Channel named him sixth greatest American of all time, and Time Magazine made him person of the year. Indeed, it would probably not be an exaggeration to claim that he is now the most uniformly reviled human living because he took a country with vast power on a reckless course. Americans themselves are beginning to agree with this judgement as his approval ratings are tempting to dip into the 20s and serious Republicans like Chuck Hagel mentioning the words "Bush" and "impeach" in the same breath. Could there possibly be silver lining? Perhaps not, but lets give it a whirl.
Recently the venerable Foreign Affairs published an essay called The New New World Order which provides some food for thought. Daniel Drezner argues that the Bush Administration has waged a smart policy of integrating rising powers (China, India et al.) into those international institutions like the IMF which function effectively. "This unheralded effort is well intentioned and well advised." For the sake of argument, lets concede that Bush has blundered badly in his Middle East and security policies. But perhaps this will merit little more than a footnote when the history of the 21st century is written, since the far larger trend is that of China and India who are fundamentally changing the way the world operates. If they are not included in the international system then "they might go it alone and create international organizations that fundamentally clash with U.S. interests." As one state department official has put it, "we need to urge China to become a stakeholder in that system so that it will work with us to sustain...its success." Of course, you might say that the other big trend has more to do with the Toyota Prius, that is to say: global warming.
Yes well the Prius may not be the angel you think it is. At least such has been the talk around conservative watercoolers (do conservatives run on water? - that will have to wait for another column). But the real question (to which the al-Gore critique is a apparently a sequel) is whether Priuses run on green energy. The source of such wisdom seems to be a report issued by a marketing research firm called CNW which was described in this article in The Recorder (okay okay, I'll admit that the school paper at Central Connectecticut State is not quite the heavyweight that Foreign Affairs is). Herein two claims are made:
He has come a long way since those heady days in 2005 when he was re-inaugurated, The Discovery Channel named him sixth greatest American of all time, and Time Magazine made him person of the year. Indeed, it would probably not be an exaggeration to claim that he is now the most uniformly reviled human living because he took a country with vast power on a reckless course. Americans themselves are beginning to agree with this judgement as his approval ratings are tempting to dip into the 20s and serious Republicans like Chuck Hagel mentioning the words "Bush" and "impeach" in the same breath. Could there possibly be silver lining? Perhaps not, but lets give it a whirl.Recently the venerable Foreign Affairs published an essay called The New New World Order which provides some food for thought. Daniel Drezner argues that the Bush Administration has waged a smart policy of integrating rising powers (China, India et al.) into those international institutions like the IMF which function effectively. "This unheralded effort is well intentioned and well advised." For the sake of argument, lets concede that Bush has blundered badly in his Middle East and security policies. But perhaps this will merit little more than a footnote when the history of the 21st century is written, since the far larger trend is that of China and India who are fundamentally changing the way the world operates. If they are not included in the international system then "they might go it alone and create international organizations that fundamentally clash with U.S. interests." As one state department official has put it, "we need to urge China to become a stakeholder in that system so that it will work with us to sustain...its success." Of course, you might say that the other big trend has more to do with the Toyota Prius, that is to say: global warming.
Yes well the Prius may not be the angel you think it is. At least such has been the talk around conservative watercoolers (do conservatives run on water? - that will have to wait for another column). But the real question (to which the al-Gore critique is a apparently a sequel) is whether Priuses run on green energy. The source of such wisdom seems to be a report issued by a marketing research firm called CNW which was described in this article in The Recorder (okay okay, I'll admit that the school paper at Central Connectecticut State is not quite the heavyweight that Foreign Affairs is). Herein two claims are made:- The lifetime energy usage of a Prius is 50% more than a Hummer, if you consider the manufacturing process.
- The mining of nickel for the batteries does massive environmental damage.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia
Smoke and Mirrors: SOA Graduate Speaks Out
Sunday, January 14th 2007
Willy E. Gutman, The Signal
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras - It took six months of secret negotiations to locate an alumnus of the U.S. Army School of the Americas willing to talk. It took nearly as long to finalize the rules of engagement.
Because he denies receiving anything but "classic war college instruction," and as the more sinister exploits of SOA graduates have been copiously rendered by the media, I reluctantly agreed not to focus on his wartime military activities. It was that or nothing.
Honduran Lt. Col. Roberto Nuñez Montes (Ret.) attended the SOA in 1963 as a cadet. In 1965, he took intelligence courses. A former intelligence chief, Nuñez was cited by America's Watch as the mastermind in 1987 of a raid on the household of a Honduran congressional deputy. More serious allegations against Nuñez have since surfaced.
What the taped interview (here stripped of small talk) lacks in incriminating detail is more than offset by Nuñez's candor and ferocious convictions.
His rhetoric is anchored in unbending soldierly doctrine: However abhorrent, atrocities in wartime are unavoidable, often justified. His arguments offer a stark insight into the military soul.
His optic also adds a chilling dimension to the mood, legacy and contradictions spawned by lingering Cold War paranoia.
Q: Who were your instructors?
A: Officer-level classes were taught by Latin American SOA graduates.
Q: Did the school offer courses on human rights?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did some SOA graduates commit acts of barbarism?
A: Warring sides give different labels to the tactical components of a military operation.
Q: Military operation?
A: Yes. We were at war.
Q: Against your own people. Civilians. You were not defending against foreign invasion.
A: Civilians subverted by outside influences can destroy a nation.
Q: Old men, women, children?
A: All part of a fifth column.
Q: Are you calling clergy, teachers, students, journalists, peasants and trade unionists a "fifth column," thus justifying-
A: Yes. Communists. They threatened the public order and national security. Ours was a war fueled by outside ideological forces intent on subverting the whole region and-
Q: - justifying the murder of priests and labor organizers because their vision of hope for the poor clashed with the interests of the plutocracy? Some were executed face down in the mud.
A: So what?
Q: - rationalizing the rape and slaughter of nuns who taught children how to read and write? Justifying the "disappearance" of thousands of civilians? Validating the massacre of 900 peasants in El Mozote, and gunning down an archbishop and six Jesuit priests who championed the powerless against the powerful?
A: I don't care if they were the pope. War makes titles, status or celebrity quite irrelevant. They were communists. All the damned lot. They had to be neutralized.
Q: - or throwing people out of helicopters several thousand feet above ground? Or using private houses as detention and torture chambers?
A: Yes, yes, yes. Madness! No one pretends that war is pretty. There was no other way. The main moral question is, what was the right thing to do under the circumstance, not who did it, or how. Many praiseworthy policies are promoted for morally dubious reasons, and many pernicious policies are advanced with the best of intentions.
Q: Good intentions and an unshakable conviction in the morality of a cause do not make such a cause moral, do they?
A: Philosophers must decide, not soldiers. Ultimately, we must ask to what extent the military actions of a debtor nation are driven by the policies and objectives of its creditor.
Q: A nation that depends on the U.S. for survival can never be free - is that what you're saying?
A: It's one way of putting it.
Q: Is there democracy in Central America today?
A: No. What we have are amorphous societies run by improvisation, governments that have no national conscience, no doctrine, no vision, no plan. They have lost sight of the priorities. When everything is important, nothing gets done.
Nuñez sees signs of conspiracy "as vast and nefarious" as the ones that set fire to the region in the 1980s. His is an imported and stubbornly articulated minority view, not just the nostalgic musings of an old warrior. He finds comfort in the notion that the men whose orders he and fellow SOA alumni issued are at large, some chairing large corporations, others basking like sated iguanas, their cozy retirement assured by those they served.
Nuñez also delights in the irony that the punishment called for by some members of Congress for convicted war criminals may never be meted out. In the tug-of-war of accusations and counter-accusations, prosecution of SOA alumni for war crimes, he believes, would "backfire and bring swift and unwelcome scrutiny on the school, U.S. intelligence services and the Pentagon."
Characteristically, the Pentagon has yet to apologize. Nor is the SOA eager to comment. Nonplused by recurring disclosures, it steadfastly rejects any hint of wrongdoing. It continues to cling to a revisionist rendering of reality that goes beyond selective amnesia. I call it exculpation by vehement denial.
Postscript
A news story published in October reveals the clandestine life and arrest in Los Angeles of a former SOA-trained Salvadoran army officer, sub-Lt. Gonzalo Guevarra Cerritos, convicted of murdering six Jesuits, their housekeeper and her teenage daughter in 1989.
The hypocrisy of U.S. authorities is troubling - claiming that they are investigating human rights violations. Fact is, the U.S. engineered these atrocities and in some cases participated in them.
Guevarra is small fry and will probably be paid off to shut up about the details of the murders, then offered sanctuary in some safe haven where thugs are retired with all the comforts of home.
So much for the "democratization" of Latin America.
Willy E. Gutman of Tehachapi is a veteran journalist on assignment in Central America since 1991. His column reflects his own views, and not necessarily those of The Signal.
View the original article: http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=45573&format=html
Justice will not be done because in order to interrogate these killers, the purpose of the SOA and the US gov would be uncovered. People would find out that the US is not in any way a democracy! Nor does it foster democracies.
Sunday, January 14th 2007
Willy E. Gutman, The Signal
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras - It took six months of secret negotiations to locate an alumnus of the U.S. Army School of the Americas willing to talk. It took nearly as long to finalize the rules of engagement.
Because he denies receiving anything but "classic war college instruction," and as the more sinister exploits of SOA graduates have been copiously rendered by the media, I reluctantly agreed not to focus on his wartime military activities. It was that or nothing.
Honduran Lt. Col. Roberto Nuñez Montes (Ret.) attended the SOA in 1963 as a cadet. In 1965, he took intelligence courses. A former intelligence chief, Nuñez was cited by America's Watch as the mastermind in 1987 of a raid on the household of a Honduran congressional deputy. More serious allegations against Nuñez have since surfaced.
What the taped interview (here stripped of small talk) lacks in incriminating detail is more than offset by Nuñez's candor and ferocious convictions.
His rhetoric is anchored in unbending soldierly doctrine: However abhorrent, atrocities in wartime are unavoidable, often justified. His arguments offer a stark insight into the military soul.
His optic also adds a chilling dimension to the mood, legacy and contradictions spawned by lingering Cold War paranoia.
Q: Who were your instructors?
A: Officer-level classes were taught by Latin American SOA graduates.
Q: Did the school offer courses on human rights?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did some SOA graduates commit acts of barbarism?
A: Warring sides give different labels to the tactical components of a military operation.
Q: Military operation?
A: Yes. We were at war.
Q: Against your own people. Civilians. You were not defending against foreign invasion.
A: Civilians subverted by outside influences can destroy a nation.
Q: Old men, women, children?
A: All part of a fifth column.
Q: Are you calling clergy, teachers, students, journalists, peasants and trade unionists a "fifth column," thus justifying-
A: Yes. Communists. They threatened the public order and national security. Ours was a war fueled by outside ideological forces intent on subverting the whole region and-
Q: - justifying the murder of priests and labor organizers because their vision of hope for the poor clashed with the interests of the plutocracy? Some were executed face down in the mud.
A: So what?
Q: - rationalizing the rape and slaughter of nuns who taught children how to read and write? Justifying the "disappearance" of thousands of civilians? Validating the massacre of 900 peasants in El Mozote, and gunning down an archbishop and six Jesuit priests who championed the powerless against the powerful?
A: I don't care if they were the pope. War makes titles, status or celebrity quite irrelevant. They were communists. All the damned lot. They had to be neutralized.
Q: - or throwing people out of helicopters several thousand feet above ground? Or using private houses as detention and torture chambers?
A: Yes, yes, yes. Madness! No one pretends that war is pretty. There was no other way. The main moral question is, what was the right thing to do under the circumstance, not who did it, or how. Many praiseworthy policies are promoted for morally dubious reasons, and many pernicious policies are advanced with the best of intentions.
Q: Good intentions and an unshakable conviction in the morality of a cause do not make such a cause moral, do they?
A: Philosophers must decide, not soldiers. Ultimately, we must ask to what extent the military actions of a debtor nation are driven by the policies and objectives of its creditor.
Q: A nation that depends on the U.S. for survival can never be free - is that what you're saying?
A: It's one way of putting it.
Q: Is there democracy in Central America today?
A: No. What we have are amorphous societies run by improvisation, governments that have no national conscience, no doctrine, no vision, no plan. They have lost sight of the priorities. When everything is important, nothing gets done.
Nuñez sees signs of conspiracy "as vast and nefarious" as the ones that set fire to the region in the 1980s. His is an imported and stubbornly articulated minority view, not just the nostalgic musings of an old warrior. He finds comfort in the notion that the men whose orders he and fellow SOA alumni issued are at large, some chairing large corporations, others basking like sated iguanas, their cozy retirement assured by those they served.
Nuñez also delights in the irony that the punishment called for by some members of Congress for convicted war criminals may never be meted out. In the tug-of-war of accusations and counter-accusations, prosecution of SOA alumni for war crimes, he believes, would "backfire and bring swift and unwelcome scrutiny on the school, U.S. intelligence services and the Pentagon."
Characteristically, the Pentagon has yet to apologize. Nor is the SOA eager to comment. Nonplused by recurring disclosures, it steadfastly rejects any hint of wrongdoing. It continues to cling to a revisionist rendering of reality that goes beyond selective amnesia. I call it exculpation by vehement denial.
Postscript
A news story published in October reveals the clandestine life and arrest in Los Angeles of a former SOA-trained Salvadoran army officer, sub-Lt. Gonzalo Guevarra Cerritos, convicted of murdering six Jesuits, their housekeeper and her teenage daughter in 1989.
The hypocrisy of U.S. authorities is troubling - claiming that they are investigating human rights violations. Fact is, the U.S. engineered these atrocities and in some cases participated in them.
Guevarra is small fry and will probably be paid off to shut up about the details of the murders, then offered sanctuary in some safe haven where thugs are retired with all the comforts of home.
So much for the "democratization" of Latin America.
Willy E. Gutman of Tehachapi is a veteran journalist on assignment in Central America since 1991. His column reflects his own views, and not necessarily those of The Signal.
View the original article: http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=45573&format=html
Justice will not be done because in order to interrogate these killers, the purpose of the SOA and the US gov would be uncovered. People would find out that the US is not in any way a democracy! Nor does it foster democracies.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
In Defence of Carter
I am taking the liberty of sticking in someone else's letter here for all to read. Ask Pytho about the editorial changes that were made.
More Diverse Opinions Needed in Carter Debate
To the editor:
It is only too trite that the editorial page of the Wheel has featured articles from Jews written in support of Israel and articles from Muslims taking the side of Jimmy Carter, "Carter Under Fire" (Jan. 30). Isn't it time for a perspective-building role reversal in this mother of all polemics?
I used to be more supportive of Israel until I decided to research Israeli policy a bit more. It seems to me that Carter is mostly right in his controversial little book, and many of the points are ripe for discussion among an American audience.
Life in the West Bank is considerably worse than life in Israel. Sustaining this condition for decades based upon an intransigent security doctrine does not comport with international standards.
Unfortunately, most of the criticism of Carter, including Kenneth Stein's, the William E. Schatten Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History and Israeli Studies, and the Wheel's own, are unfair. They forfeit substance for personal attack, hearsay, demagoguery and other false devices.
For example, "an avalanche of criticism" leaves out any mention of his many supporters and your remarks about the "three most prominent colleagues" are similarly misleading. Nor is the suggestion accurate that Carter, who had the integrity to retract one line in the book, is on the run or discredited - to the contrary - Carter has defended his position with great poise and sensitivity.
Your suggestion that Carter is a Holocaust denier is downright irresponsible. You paraphrased Stein's claim that the book is "rife with factual inaccuracies," but his recent published clarification was mostly hot air, except for a couple of jabs where he discusses Carter's treatment of Palestinian terrorism. But the facts concerning Israel's occupation of the West Bank do stand up to scrutiny, I'm afraid, and as Israel's most influential partner, the attitudes of the United States do matter.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Plug-in-Hybrids in 4 Parts
What's all this talk about Plug-In Hybrid Cars? (Part I)
You may have heard of General Motors' plan to develop a "Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle" (PHEV) as soon as they can (Chevy Volt). Toyota is also working on such a car. This is an important move for all U.S. drivers because it can transfer much of the energy that autos use from oil to electricity, cut toxic air pollution, and reduce global warming. A major automaker has finally recognized the importance of this technology after 4 years of pressure from several grass-roots organizations. Just what are PHEVs and what makes them so important to our future?
You have probably heard of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs), which have both an engine that burns fuel and an electric motor that draws power from a large battery. This almost doubles the fuel economy of the car (40 to 50 mpg is typical). The engine can run at a more constant speed because the electric motor gives extra power when needed and generates power to store in the battery when slowing down. So what's different about PHEVs? The simple answer is the battery is 5 times bigger and the car can run on battery-only for the first 30 miles or so (called a PHEV-30). The battery must be charged from an ordinary outlet at night, but the typical cost for this first 30 miles is about 35 cents/day. When the battery is discharged the engine takes over and works like a normal hybrid electric car. Many people have a daily commute of less than 30 miles, and with a mix of long and short trips PHEVs get over 100 mpg of gas (plus the cost of recharging the battery at night). You may forget how to pump gas, since a 12 gallon tank would take you 1200 miles. Next time: Why are 100 MPG cars so important to America?
Why are 100 MPG cars so important to America? (Part II)
That wasn't a misprint last week. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) can get 100 mpg of gasoline (but you also have to pay for the electricity to recharge them... about 35 cents a day. This car can have a huge impact on building a sustainable energy future! Studies show that gas powered cars are dirtier than present electric power plants... and the electric plants are getting cleaner every day. Every time someone signs up for CT Clean Power, more clean renewable energy is added to the grid. Beyond that, PHEVs helps us reduce our huge volume of imported oil by 4, which drains money from our economy, makes us vulnerable to supply interruptions, pollutes our skies and increases global climate change. We are a particular problem because even though we are only 1/20 of the world's population we use 1/4 of the world's oil. So if we can cut our use by 4, we can have a big impact on all of the problems related to our energy use.
But there is another important reason we must cut our fuel use by 75%: it will enable us to use Biofuels. They are fuels we can make from crops we grow and plant wastes. Last year 1/6 of the US corn crop was converted into ethanol, raising market prices and making farming a viable business. But this year new ethanol plants are being built that don't use food crops, but instead use plant wastes or grasses grown on marginal land. If we can cut our fuel use to 1/4 of what we use now, we have a chance to grow our way to energy independence. But we must reduce our use by 3/4 because there is not enough land in the US to grow enough for the amount we use now. Next time: Can we make a 500 mpg car?
Can we really make 500 mpg Plug-In Hybrid Cars? (Part III)
Last time we talked about these PHEV cars that get 100 mpg in typical use, if you recharge the battery overnight. We also said that we could use ethanol made from crop wastes in such cars and make a car that gets 500 mpg of gasoline. But this biofuel isn't magic; it will not suddenly make Plug-in Hybrids get 500 mpg. But only 15% of the ethanol fuel is gasoline (called E-85); the other 85% is made from U.S.-grown plant material from farm and urban wastes. So the PHEV burning E-85 fuel gets 500 mpg for every gallon of imported gasoline (plus electricity for charging, plus the ethanol fuel). But remember that the money we spend buying ethanol, unlike gasoline, stays in the US economy, providing good jobs in farm communities and more income for farmers.
Won't the burning of any fuel release carbon dioxide, the troublesome greenhouse gas that's changing our climate? That is true, but if we cut our use by 75% through efficiency, we would only emit 25% of today's CO2 amounts. Even more important, the CO2 emitted by biofuels made from plant matter is re-absorbed by the next season's plant growth; they are called "carbon neutral". Unlike oil extraction, the process can continue indefinitely. Moreover, we already have enough electric capacity at night, when electric demand drops off, to charge our car batteries even if 84% of our cars were PHEVs. We don't need a whole new fuel supply system for them. The air would be cleaner and the planet's climate problems could level off and perhaps decline. By the way, prototype PHEVs exist now, usually made by converting hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius. One was made by a battery company right here in Danbury, Connecticut (electroenergy.com). Next Time: It sounds great, so when can I buy one?
When Will We Be Able to Buy 500 mpg Plug-in Hybrid Cars? (Part IV)
So if Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs) can quadruple auto mileage, dramatically cut oil imports, give us cleaner air, reduce global warming, and enable us to rebuild our economy by growing crops that will fuel our cars, mostly with ethanol, what are we waiting for? When will they be in showrooms? While there are a few dozen prototypes on the road now, none were built by the auto companies. The carmakers are being dragged into the business by grass-root efforts from California and Texas, which have worked tirelessly to explain the benefits and build a broad consensus in favor of the technology. But GM and Toyota won't say when they will go on sale. Why? They feel the batteries are not quite ready. The batteries for PHEVs will have to be light and powerful, and most importantly, durable under daily full-discharge cycles and wide temperature swings.
Right now this means only Lithium Ion batteries (as in your cell phone and laptop PC) can give a 30 or 40 mile electric-only range, but no one is making a battery large enough for this application, and there have been some well-known problems with laptop batteries. So there are some unanswered technical questions. The answer seems to be to build a group of test cars, probably for fleet buyers, and develop a way to insure all parties against the risk of battery failures. There are quite a few companies developing large capacity batteries which are expected to have the safety and durability needed. GM has contracted with two joint-venture producers for delivery later this year, and testing can then begin. It seems likely that the cars could go on sale within the next 3 years. Like the current hybrid cars, PHEVs may take 5 to 10 years for their fuel savings to pay for their extra costs, but they have many other benefits... to our nation's economy, to our air quality and to the global climate. Ultimately we have to make a personal moral decision about what's more important: a sunroof, GPS and leather seats, or a highly efficient drive system that can change the world, the national economy and our local environment.
You may have heard of General Motors' plan to develop a "Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle" (PHEV) as soon as they can (Chevy Volt). Toyota is also working on such a car. This is an important move for all U.S. drivers because it can transfer much of the energy that autos use from oil to electricity, cut toxic air pollution, and reduce global warming. A major automaker has finally recognized the importance of this technology after 4 years of pressure from several grass-roots organizations. Just what are PHEVs and what makes them so important to our future?
You have probably heard of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs), which have both an engine that burns fuel and an electric motor that draws power from a large battery. This almost doubles the fuel economy of the car (40 to 50 mpg is typical). The engine can run at a more constant speed because the electric motor gives extra power when needed and generates power to store in the battery when slowing down. So what's different about PHEVs? The simple answer is the battery is 5 times bigger and the car can run on battery-only for the first 30 miles or so (called a PHEV-30). The battery must be charged from an ordinary outlet at night, but the typical cost for this first 30 miles is about 35 cents/day. When the battery is discharged the engine takes over and works like a normal hybrid electric car. Many people have a daily commute of less than 30 miles, and with a mix of long and short trips PHEVs get over 100 mpg of gas (plus the cost of recharging the battery at night). You may forget how to pump gas, since a 12 gallon tank would take you 1200 miles. Next time: Why are 100 MPG cars so important to America?
Why are 100 MPG cars so important to America? (Part II)
That wasn't a misprint last week. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) can get 100 mpg of gasoline (but you also have to pay for the electricity to recharge them... about 35 cents a day. This car can have a huge impact on building a sustainable energy future! Studies show that gas powered cars are dirtier than present electric power plants... and the electric plants are getting cleaner every day. Every time someone signs up for CT Clean Power, more clean renewable energy is added to the grid. Beyond that, PHEVs helps us reduce our huge volume of imported oil by 4, which drains money from our economy, makes us vulnerable to supply interruptions, pollutes our skies and increases global climate change. We are a particular problem because even though we are only 1/20 of the world's population we use 1/4 of the world's oil. So if we can cut our use by 4, we can have a big impact on all of the problems related to our energy use.
But there is another important reason we must cut our fuel use by 75%: it will enable us to use Biofuels. They are fuels we can make from crops we grow and plant wastes. Last year 1/6 of the US corn crop was converted into ethanol, raising market prices and making farming a viable business. But this year new ethanol plants are being built that don't use food crops, but instead use plant wastes or grasses grown on marginal land. If we can cut our fuel use to 1/4 of what we use now, we have a chance to grow our way to energy independence. But we must reduce our use by 3/4 because there is not enough land in the US to grow enough for the amount we use now. Next time: Can we make a 500 mpg car?
Can we really make 500 mpg Plug-In Hybrid Cars? (Part III)
Last time we talked about these PHEV cars that get 100 mpg in typical use, if you recharge the battery overnight. We also said that we could use ethanol made from crop wastes in such cars and make a car that gets 500 mpg of gasoline. But this biofuel isn't magic; it will not suddenly make Plug-in Hybrids get 500 mpg. But only 15% of the ethanol fuel is gasoline (called E-85); the other 85% is made from U.S.-grown plant material from farm and urban wastes. So the PHEV burning E-85 fuel gets 500 mpg for every gallon of imported gasoline (plus electricity for charging, plus the ethanol fuel). But remember that the money we spend buying ethanol, unlike gasoline, stays in the US economy, providing good jobs in farm communities and more income for farmers.
Won't the burning of any fuel release carbon dioxide, the troublesome greenhouse gas that's changing our climate? That is true, but if we cut our use by 75% through efficiency, we would only emit 25% of today's CO2 amounts. Even more important, the CO2 emitted by biofuels made from plant matter is re-absorbed by the next season's plant growth; they are called "carbon neutral". Unlike oil extraction, the process can continue indefinitely. Moreover, we already have enough electric capacity at night, when electric demand drops off, to charge our car batteries even if 84% of our cars were PHEVs. We don't need a whole new fuel supply system for them. The air would be cleaner and the planet's climate problems could level off and perhaps decline. By the way, prototype PHEVs exist now, usually made by converting hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius. One was made by a battery company right here in Danbury, Connecticut (electroenergy.com). Next Time: It sounds great, so when can I buy one?
When Will We Be Able to Buy 500 mpg Plug-in Hybrid Cars? (Part IV)
So if Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs) can quadruple auto mileage, dramatically cut oil imports, give us cleaner air, reduce global warming, and enable us to rebuild our economy by growing crops that will fuel our cars, mostly with ethanol, what are we waiting for? When will they be in showrooms? While there are a few dozen prototypes on the road now, none were built by the auto companies. The carmakers are being dragged into the business by grass-root efforts from California and Texas, which have worked tirelessly to explain the benefits and build a broad consensus in favor of the technology. But GM and Toyota won't say when they will go on sale. Why? They feel the batteries are not quite ready. The batteries for PHEVs will have to be light and powerful, and most importantly, durable under daily full-discharge cycles and wide temperature swings.
Right now this means only Lithium Ion batteries (as in your cell phone and laptop PC) can give a 30 or 40 mile electric-only range, but no one is making a battery large enough for this application, and there have been some well-known problems with laptop batteries. So there are some unanswered technical questions. The answer seems to be to build a group of test cars, probably for fleet buyers, and develop a way to insure all parties against the risk of battery failures. There are quite a few companies developing large capacity batteries which are expected to have the safety and durability needed. GM has contracted with two joint-venture producers for delivery later this year, and testing can then begin. It seems likely that the cars could go on sale within the next 3 years. Like the current hybrid cars, PHEVs may take 5 to 10 years for their fuel savings to pay for their extra costs, but they have many other benefits... to our nation's economy, to our air quality and to the global climate. Ultimately we have to make a personal moral decision about what's more important: a sunroof, GPS and leather seats, or a highly efficient drive system that can change the world, the national economy and our local environment.
Death at an Early Age
Death at an Early Age: the Destruction of the Hearts and Minds of Negro
Children in the Boston Public Schools
by
Jonathan Kozol
In 1964 Mr Kozol was a new teacher in a segregated classroom in the
Boston public school system. School board members, teachers, and
administrators consciously maintained a system of bigotry and physical
punishment. The aim, intended or not, was to persuade the kids that
they were inferior. The school buildings were in deplorable condition,
books were inadequate. In fact books were chosen so that the black
kids did not read about slavery, but about a perfect white world. Kids
were hit on their hands with strips of rattan, raising welts on their
hands and contributing to their feelings of inferiority. Jonathan
Kozol speaks with open outrage at the system which fosters and protects
prejudiced teachers. In his fourth grade class he introduced
"unauthorized" reading material. He took some kids on a few trips on
his own time and was verbally castigated for it. The final straw which
got him fired a week before the end of the school year was the reading
of a poem by Langston Hughes. But he's a black poet, you say! The
title was "Ballad of the Landlord". Look it up. The poem resonated with
the class, and they took it home and memorized it. His firing made the
newspapers; the city school committee upheld it, but it caused the
parents to gather, protest, and demand better conditions.
How many other large cities have (or had) the same problems? This is
just one man's account in Boston.
Jonathan today is a well-respected teacher and journalist. He still
lives in Boston. He also wrote "Amazing Grace", about the neighborhood
of Mott Haven in the south Bronx. In "cleaning up" Manhattan for
tourists, the city moved homeless and low income people to this poor
area and provided very few funds or services for their benefit.
Both of these books are highly recommended (by me). Or read any one of
his many other books. If he is speaking near you, go and see him!
Children in the Boston Public Schools
by
Jonathan Kozol
In 1964 Mr Kozol was a new teacher in a segregated classroom in the
Boston public school system. School board members, teachers, and
administrators consciously maintained a system of bigotry and physical
punishment. The aim, intended or not, was to persuade the kids that
they were inferior. The school buildings were in deplorable condition,
books were inadequate. In fact books were chosen so that the black
kids did not read about slavery, but about a perfect white world. Kids
were hit on their hands with strips of rattan, raising welts on their
hands and contributing to their feelings of inferiority. Jonathan
Kozol speaks with open outrage at the system which fosters and protects
prejudiced teachers. In his fourth grade class he introduced
"unauthorized" reading material. He took some kids on a few trips on
his own time and was verbally castigated for it. The final straw which
got him fired a week before the end of the school year was the reading
of a poem by Langston Hughes. But he's a black poet, you say! The
title was "Ballad of the Landlord". Look it up. The poem resonated with
the class, and they took it home and memorized it. His firing made the
newspapers; the city school committee upheld it, but it caused the
parents to gather, protest, and demand better conditions.
How many other large cities have (or had) the same problems? This is
just one man's account in Boston.
Jonathan today is a well-respected teacher and journalist. He still
lives in Boston. He also wrote "Amazing Grace", about the neighborhood
of Mott Haven in the south Bronx. In "cleaning up" Manhattan for
tourists, the city moved homeless and low income people to this poor
area and provided very few funds or services for their benefit.
Both of these books are highly recommended (by me). Or read any one of
his many other books. If he is speaking near you, go and see him!
A Bean Is Not Just A Bean
I have been curious about beans ever since Pythagoras named the blog. What is the story? I'm afraid I don't know enough to tell it properly. It seems to twist on the idea that a bean is not just a bean; it literally embodies what it resembles. Many people, most famously Pythagoras, have noticed that a bean looks a lot like a human body or certain parts of a body. Perhaps a bean is a fetal human? Pythagoras forbade his followers (yes, he had a small flock, not all of them mathematicians) to eat the bean or even to touch the plant, which, being without joints or segments, seems to connect heaven and hell.
[This is not an isolated eccentrism: plants have often been related to what they resemble. This has resulted in, for instance, the name of an herbaceous spring flowering plant with curious, three-lobed leaves (see http://ivycreekfoundation.org/Hepatica.html). Hepatica ( from Gr. hepar) was believed to cure liver problems because it looked like one.]
There are some other interesting bean personnae to explore, if you care to. One relates beans to politics. I read about beans by Googling bean Pythagoras.
Here's skin off your bean.
[This is not an isolated eccentrism: plants have often been related to what they resemble. This has resulted in, for instance, the name of an herbaceous spring flowering plant with curious, three-lobed leaves (see http://ivycreekfoundation.org/Hepatica.html). Hepatica ( from Gr. hepar) was believed to cure liver problems because it looked like one.]
There are some other interesting bean personnae to explore, if you care to. One relates beans to politics. I read about beans by Googling bean Pythagoras.
Here's skin off your bean.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
