California Revolution

2011-03-19T03:42:00.000-07:00

Obama Come Home!

TelesurTV is reporting that Barack Obama's visit has been the cause of protests in Brasil and is expected to be met with protests in Chile, as well. Friday's protest ended in front of the American consulate and was dispersed by military police using tear gas and rubber bullets according to Brazilian news outlets.

According to the press release cited by Telesur, the protest is against the "imperialism of the United States and the demagoguery of Obama, who practices a militarist and interventionist policy, while he uses a rhetoric of defense of human rights."

Telesur is also reporting that the American consulate has announced that Obama's speech will no longer take place in a central square in the open air, but in an indoor location.

Folha.com has published numerous photographs related to the event and will surely publish many more in the next few days which promise to be very colorful, as well as videos, although their videos don't seem to load.

Poor Imperial Chief.

2011-03-01T01:41:00.000-08:00

Carless Board of Supervisor to Run for SF Mayor

David Chiu, who is currently the President of the Board of Supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco has announced his candidacy for mayor. He also doesn't own a car and has pledged to work to improve mass transit. He said, "As your candidate for mayor who doesn’t own a car, who gets to City Hall either on the number 49 or on my bicycle, I think we can do better.”

Wow. That's someone I can take seriously. I hope that his candidacy raises the profile of mass transit as a campaign issue throughout California. I believe that there is only so much a city or county can do to improve mass transit without responsible mass transit policy by the state or federal government.

2010-11-04T17:37:00.000-07:00

The California Difference

After the resounding victory of Democrats for statewide offices in California, Senator Boxer's victory, as well as the imposition of a will contrary to that of Republicans on important propositions such as 23 and 25, commentators and analysts are asking about and analyzing the differences between California and the rest of the country.

To begin to explain the difference, let me begin by stating that California has finally elected an intelligent and well qualified Governor. Let us remember that when Arnold Schwarzenegger was first elected Governor, he was a right wing activist, would often say idiotic things, and had no political experience. I give him credit for learning on the job and transforming himself. He broke ranks with conservative Republicans, so much so, that during budget negotiations reporters would say that he acted more like a Democrat, than a Republican. The vast majority of bills that he signed into law, were written by Democrats, including the most historic and significant piece of legislation, for which he will be remembered, AB 32, which was written by Fran Pavley and Fabian Nuñez. California changed Arnold.

Then along comes Meg Whitman sounding exactly like the old Arnold used to, as the brilliant political ad below demonstrates. Since she had the same campaign director as Arnold did in 2003, Pete Wilson, it's not surprising. They were probably coached by the same people as well.

After 7 years of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor, 8 years of George Bush as President, and 2 years of Barack Obama as President, to whom can Californians attribute responsibility for the general economic downturn in California and the 12.4% unemployment rate? It should be obvious that a far more profound process is taking place, and the proposition that Meg Whitman was somehow uniquely qualified to turn things around for California and reduce the unemployment rate because of her experience as CEO of Ebay is ludicrous. For people who believed that, I have bridge I would like to sell them.

Jerry Brown on the other hand, is intelligent, visionary, and experienced. He is the best qualified candidate to be elected Governor in my lifetime.

The difference is that California is the most populous state in the nation, and has very large urban concentrations, such as Los Angeles county, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Our urban experience gives us a different insight. The premise upon which the Meg Whitman campaign was based on is an insult to my intelligence and, I'm sure, to the intelligence of millions of Los Angeles county and San Francisco Bay Area residents. Remove Los Angeles county and the San Francisco Bay Area from the equation, and California is surprisingly conservative.

To further explain the difference, one thing that I can state with certainty, and I believe the vast majority of Californians would agree with me, is that the American economy will never improve unless it reduces its radical oil dependence. Yet, I have never heard or read a single proposal formulated by a Republican that would do that. In fact, they take the opposite perspective, as exemplified by the motto many of them have adopted, "Drill, Baby, Drill," their willingness to act against the scientific consensus on important issues such as climate change, and the irrational and impractical position which is nearly universal among them, of being against any and all tax increases. In California, dozens of Republican state legislators even went as far as signing a pledge stating such opposition.

Such an irrational and impractical position would impede Republicans from ever funding the mass transit our society direly needs, yet the vast majority of the industrialized world has per capita oil consumption rates which are 40 to 60% below that of the United States, primarily due to mass transit.

There is a common perception that Republicans have trouble attracting Latino votes, particularly in California, with which I agree. However, there are those who point out that Republicans don't have trouble attracting Latino votes in Florida or Texas. We must acknowledge the very real differences that exist between the two largest latino groups in Florida and California, i.e. Cubans and Mexicans, but also that the population of Los Angeles county and the San Francisco Bay Area is larger than the entire population of Florida and is about 70 to 75% of the population of the entire state of Texas, depending on which statistics are used.

San Francisco, Los Angeles, we are a revolution! Onwards towards making mass transit the primary mode of transportation in the state and decriminalizing marijuana.

2010-10-26T20:54:00.000-07:00

Some of the Global Repercussions of Proposition 19

The AP is reporting that certain Latin American leaders are questioning the wisdom of California's ballot measure to legalize marijuana. The five leaders mentioned are Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia, Felipe Calderon of Mexico, Porfirio Lobo of Honduras, Alvaro Colom of Guatemala, and Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica.

Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia, obviously does not believe in Colombian soveriegnty. He is quoted as saying, "How can I tell a farmer in my country that if he grows marijuana, I'll put him in jail, when in the richest state of the United States it's legal to produce, traffic and consume the same product?"

Whether or not it should be legal for a Colombian farmer to grow marijuana is a matter of Colombian soveriegnty, and should be decided independently of what U.S. policy is. In an ideal world, of course.

It is astonishing, the crass subservience to the U.S. government that these leaders espouse.

Felipe Calderon of Mexico, whose nickname in Mexico is FECAL, is not even the legitimate President of Mexico. He won by 6 tenths of 1 percent in an election in which there were credible allegations of fraud. Prior to his election, the Mexican Congress had passed a law that would have decriminalized a host of drugs, including marijuana. The former President vetoed it. Upon his election, the current President decided to make a "war on drugs" his top priority.

If democracy would have been respected in Mexico, the "war on drugs" would not be a top priority, the country would be under different policies with different results. Instead, 28,000 Mexicans have died over the last 4 years out of the sheer subservience of the Mexican government to the American government.

Porfirio Lobo of Honduras is not the legitimate President of Honduras either. He would not be President of Honduras if it were not for a coup. Some governments of the region have not yet recognized the legitimacy of his government, unfortunately, the U.S. has, and is even suspected of orchestrating the coup.

I do not know too much about Alvaro Colom of Guatemala or Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica, but judging by the company they keep, I would assume that they have similar perspectives. The group as a whole I would classify as the puppets of the Empire.

I have not yet read the California Legislative Analyst's assessment of Proposition 19. I have read an article which is critical of it by former California gubernatorial candidate and marijuana decriminalization advocate Dennis Peron. However, I certainly do agree with the concept decriminalizing marijuana. May California take a bold stance, either now, or in the near future.

2010-06-27T03:12:00.000-07:00

Mexico vs. Argentina

I give Mexico a 20 to 30 percent chance of winning. I hope they both play well and may the best team win. Long live Latin American unity. Long live the revolution. May the empire be transformed and down with Anglo-Saxon hegemony in our continent and the whole world.

2010-06-21T21:13:00.000-07:00

A Revolutionary Team

Thursday's 4-1 victory by Argentina over South Korea showcased Lionel Messi rising to the occassion and leading his team to a commanding victory. He fought for balls, dribbled past defenders, and made passes that turned into goals. As of yet, I have not seen another player in this World Cup make as big an impact on the game as Messi. I believe that Messi can be the key to a World Cup Championship for Argentina, in spite of the generally low expectations and lack of confidence in the team, a situation which I'm sure has changed considerably since the start of the tournament.

The team's coach, Diego Maradona, is the perfect person to recognize Messi's potential in the world cup and nurture it so that it can be realized. He led Argentina to a World Cup championship in 1986 and scored the "Goal of the Century" along the way. He also led his team to another final in 1990 and almost single handedly eliminated Brazil in the process. He would have led his team to another final in 1994 had he not been expelled,

It is very gratifying for fans and friends of Maradona to see him experience success as a coach in his first World Cup. His popularity, along with Messi's, creates fans of the Argentinean team all over the world, and is not just based on his feats in the field, but also on his outspokenness, his support for revolutionary change, and his open stances on issues of social justice.

For example, at the May 24, 2010 game against Canada, the team displayed this banner in support of the Abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo(Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo), which looks for children taken away from their murdered parents by the last military dictatorship in Argentina. Supposedly there is a large flag at the Argentinean team's living quarters in South Africa with the same message. The leader of the group, Estela de Carlotto, has expressed her appreciation for Maradona's "explicit support."

During George Bush's trip through South America which Hugo Chavez mirrored, mocking Bush and challenging American policy, Maradona was at the front of the march, the day Hugo Chavez spoke in Argentina.

Maradona has been attributed with saying that if the Catholic Church is so concerned with the plight of the poor, why doesn't it take its wealth and give it to them?

Diego Maradona is personal friends with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. In one of the following videos, you can see Maradona in an interview with Hugo Chavez in which he declares his support for him and that he "hates everything that comes from the United States."

In one of the other videos you can see him in an interview with Fidel Castro in which he discusses that he's been stopped at the airport in Miami, strip searched, and denied entry into the United States. He states, "Some of us can live without the United States."

Bolivian President Evo Morales, also a friend of his, is rooting for Argentina too.

The success of the Argentinean team and Maradona as a coach will highlight and reflect some of the revolutionary changes that have occurred in the hemisphere. The world has changed, and the empire is still limping behind. I suppose the World Cup along with Oliver Stone's next movie will considerably open American's eyes to the realities of the continent.

2009-10-10T15:38:00.000-07:00

A Nobel Prize for the Imperial Chief

When the news that Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize became concrete in my mind, I thought, a Nobel Prize for the imperial chief; a man who is president of a country involved in two wars. He opposed the Iraq war, but was not yet in the Senate. If he had been in the Senate back then, it is not an exageration to think that he perhaps would have voted for the resolution that authorized the use of force, given the pressure that is exerted on senators and the fact that Barack Obama is a centrist. This is a quality that has contributed to his success, even since the days as president of the Harvard Law Review, based on what I've read.

It's not just ironic that he be awarded the Nobel Prize at the same time that there is talk of escalating the war in Afghanistan, it is also ironic and disillusioning, that Barack Obama has not yet acknowledged that the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong.

Another irony is that he still maintains the economic blockade against Cuba, in spite of the fact that all of the governments of the western hemisphere have asked him to lift it, the majority of Americans are against the blockade, and he does not need the consent of Congress to lift it. This is revealing of the fact that the empire has owners. He also has not closed the prison in Guantanamo.

The seven new American military bases proposed within Colombia are also contrary to the process of peace. When Barack Obama refers to Venezuela as a "rogue state" that supports terrorism, one does not know if Barack Obama genuinely believes what he says or is cynically apealing to right wing and imperialist tendencies within his country. They are belicose and conflagrant words that collide with the image of a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

There is a video on Youtube titled, "El Discurso Que Estados Unidos No Esperaba"(The Speech which the United States Did Not Expect) in which all of the presidents of the continent are gathered around a table and Hugo Chavez talks about and denies the alleged economic aid he gives to the FARC. Immediately afterwards, the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe, gets up, goes straight to the Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, shakes his hand, and exchanges a few words with him. Immediately after this he goes straight to Hugo Chavez and does the same thing. What this video suggests to me is that not even the President of Colombia believes in the shit which Barack Obama says.

On other occasions, he appeals to the ignorance and the prejudice of Americans, like when he proposes eliminating oil imports from Venezuela and the Middle East within ten years. When he made this proposal, the latest available data was from 2007, and such reductions would barely amount to a reduction of 17.3% of the total oil which Americans consume. The Nobel Prize committee has awarded the prize to Al Gore for his work in the area of climate change, and now awards the prize to Barack Obama in part for the same reason, but according to its criteria, is a reduction of 17.3% over 10 years on the part of a country which consumes 24% of the world's oil a goal which is commensurate with the threat that climate change represents?

Barack Obama could have proposed to reduce oil consumption by 17%, 25%, or 35% without having to wrap the goal in a turban and dress it in the military uniform of a dictator who hates America, which is how many media outlets portray Hugo Chavez. In the meanwhile, the vast majority of the rest of the industrialized countries of the world have per capita oil consumption rates which are 40-60% below that of the U.S. A country can be rich without consuming so much oil.

The U.S. can reach a similar rate, but it would have to develop mass transit, a "socialist" solution which would not go well with oil coompanies, which the vast majority of Americans are compelled to make rich because of the lack of mass transit, and who are some of the owners of the empire and the bosses of Barack Obama himself. You all cannot imagine the isolation, the loss of social and economic opportunities which results from living in a city like Los Angeles without a car. We are compelled to destroy the planet simply to be able to live our lives to the fullest.

The contradiction is immense and reminds me of something which Fidel Castro recently wrote. That the immense American military power is not a necessity of the world, but a necessity for maintaining the economic system which it has imposed on the world.

On the other hand, like Barack Obama said in his acceptance speech, "The Nobel Peace Prize has not been used just to honor specific achievement, it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes." Perhaps Barack Obama and the rest of the world will be conditioned. In determining what steps to follow in Afhanistan and other regions of the world, Barack Obama will have in mind that he is a Noble Peace Prize winner and that he should do more to achieve peace. Perhaps leaders of the world, especially from the so called "third world," will have in mind that he has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, in part because of his ambitions to confront global warming, and demand more and be more firm in Copenhagen and beyond. Perhaps Americans ourselves can demand more, like instead of perpetuating a transportation system that compels us to make oil companies rich and which requires invasions of other countries in order to sustain, we can develop mass transit as the primary mode of transportation.

2009-05-20T17:46:00.000-07:00

The Aftermath

California was in no mood to approve short term solutions yesterday as the map demonstrates. Mainstream politicians have not brought before the voters fundamental changes to our socioeconomic structure such as the ones I discussed in yesterday's entry, because they are perceived as politically inviable. Voters have demonstrated that the short term solutions they were asked to approve are not politically viable either. It will be interesting to see how politically viable the cuts in programs and social services which are now being threatened will be, and what effect they will have on the society in the context of a plummeting economy. The opportunity for real changes is the best when the society has collapsed, or is perceived as being on the verge of collapsing. May Californians see the light and transform their socioeconomic structure which is neither ecologically, nor economically sustainable, and which I would characterize as sadomasochistic.

2009-05-19T12:14:00.000-07:00

The Useless Election

Today, California is voting on six initiatives that have all been placed on the ballot by the state legislature. Among them, proposition 1A extends recently passed tax increases for two additional years. Three of them combined will raise $6 billion dollars through borrowing and redirecting money, thus reducing the projected budget deficit to $16 billion from $21 billion. A mass of mainstream politicians including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa support the measures which were the result of the most overdue budget in state history. The Los Angeles Times endorsed all of them except 1B. Five out of six are expected to lose and the measure with the most minimal impact, limiting pay increases for legislators if there is a budget crisis, is expected to pass.

I have not been paying much attention until very recently, don't plan to vote, and have taken the time to learn about the propositions out of curiosity. The measures are largely short term solutions that avoid fundamental changes the state needs to make, such as reforming proposition 13, which Arnold Schwarzenegger has explicitly opposed in the past. Borrowing $5 billion from future lottery earnings essentially relies upon the same logic as borrowing $15 billion to fix the budget problem in 2004. Except now the problem which Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged to fix when first elected is worse than ever. According to the election material provided by the Secretary of State of California, "Even with the adoption of the 2009-10 budget package and assuming that all of the propositions on this ballot pass, it is expected that the state would face multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls in the coming years."

Yet Arnold Schwarzenegger has never considered taking the advice of his economic advisor in 2003, Warren Buffet, to repeal or reform proposition 13. Neither have the voters been asked to approve a reform of this measure, even though a reform of this measure is ostensibly of mutual interest to the Governor and the average Californian. The proposition capped property taxes and created an unfair property tax system which contributes to the budget crisis, shortchanges the education system and local governments, and creates housing scarcity and higher housing costs.

We've also never been asked to vote for universal healthcare, even though bills have been introduced in the legislature in the past. We've never been asked to fund the mass transit system our state direly needs, and we've never been asked to vote for publicly financed elections. We've never been asked to make the fundamental changes which are necessary to create a fairer and more sustainable society.

California collects most of its revenue from the personal income and the sales taxes. During what is being referred to as the most severe recession since the 1930s, revenue from such sources will fall more precipitously than revenue from property taxes. The palpable sudden loss in wealth, power, and prestige that the U.S. is undergoing is the sound of the empire crumbling. California must transform itself and not allow itself to be buried under the rubble by perpetuating a system which is regarded as malfunctional .

The election is as useless as Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor. He pledged to fix the budget problem, now its' worse than ever. He denied that California had a revenue problem, but instead had a spending problem. The current drastic conditions have changed his mind. He began as a right wing advocate, only to confront defeat, and subsequently move further and further to the center until now he's just about the same as the man he replaced, Grey Davis.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is historically important not just because he's a movie star married to a Kennedy, but also because he broke with the Anglo-saxon hegemonists. During newscasts covering budget negotiations anchors and reporters have commented, "Arnold is not acting like a Republican, he's acting more like a Democrat." Every significant piece of legislation which he has signed during his governorship is virtually guaranteed to have been written by a Democrat. The most historically important perhaps being AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which was not only written by Democrats, but by a Mexican! Fabian Nuñez and Fran Pavley coauthored the bill. What awaits us after Arnold is perhaps the first Mexican governor of California since Pio Pico.

2009-02-16T17:20:00.000-08:00

Congratulations Venezuela

The constitutional amendment which will permit Hugo Chavez to be re-elected to the presidency was approved yesterday with 54.85% of the votes in favor.

Hugo Chavez:, "You guys were capable of confronting lies, the attempts at manipulation by the oligarchy and its media. You guys have managed to defeat lies. The truth has imposed itself."

"You guys should study history. The complete history, and diffuse it. Like Bolivar said, history is an immense womb which contains more hopes than past events, and future events will be greater than the past ones. History is a teacher and a mother to the peoples."

2009-02-14T21:59:00.000-08:00

Hugo Chavez on Al Jazeera: The multi-lingual video

One of the most powerful aspects of the internet is that it allows a person to have a bird's eye perspective. No longer do we have to limit ourselves to a monolithic perspective from a national television network. Such a monolithic perspective can be compared to other points of view throughout the world. One of my favorite personalities is Hugo Chavez for this reason. I found this video interesting because he is speaking in Spanish, there is an Arabic voice-over translation, and English subtitles, creating an intersection for perspectives from diverse regions of the world's population.

Here, Hugo discusses the American empire, how it is a threat to the world, how it attempts to perpetuate the American lifestyle through the acquisition of oil resources, and how such an empire must be countered through the rise of a multi-polar world. Since this interview, the American empire has become further debilitated, and the multi-polar world has gained strength.

2009-02-13T21:30:00.000-08:00

Think Swiss, About Transportation
The Swiss Embassy of Washington D.C. in collaboration with the Federal Office of Transport in Switzerland has created a traveling exhibit which launched on February 12th and is showing at George Washington University in Washington D.C. The exhibit is titled, “The Challenge of Sustainable Transportation for the 21st Century: The Prospects for Switzerland and the U.S.” Switzerland is a country which has a per capita oil consumption rate which is 47.9% of the United States, and according to the organizers of the exhibit, has the most used mass transit system in Western Europe. After learning more about the exhibit through the PDF that was published about it, I hope that it comes to California. According to the PDF, a bus usually requires only 5 passengers for it to become more carbon efficient than a car. If such is the case, why are there not more buses in Los Angeles? Following are some graphics from the PDF that serve to illuminate a society which for the most part lives in darkness and struggles to see the light regarding transportation and sustainable energy policies.

2009-02-01T02:31:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama and the Mass Transit Revolution

In our society, certain goals are acknowledged to be necessary for achieving ecological as well as economic sustainability, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing petroleum consumption. Reducing petroleum consumption would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and since 99% of the fuel that powers American vehicles is oil according to the Department of Energy, transforming the transportation system of the society is fundamental for achieving these goals, as well as other quality of life goals such as reducing traffic and reducing smog.

Los Angelenos are intimately familiar with the undesirable results of compelling the vast majority of the population to drive in order to achieve an adequate level of mobility. They have also taken action: 67.9% of Los Angeles county residents recently voted for a measure(R) that will increase their local sales tax by 0.5% and contribute 65% of the revenue to mass transit. On a statewide level, Californians approved $9.95 billion of bonds to begin the construction of a bullet train that will connect Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2 1/2 hours(Prop 1A). In contrast to this, Californians rejected $3.425 billion of bonds to subsidize the purchase of high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles(Prop10).

While politicians have railed against foreign oil dependence over the last few years, overall U.S. oil consumption barely diminished until very recently. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2007 American oil consumption dropped by 0.0003% from the previous year. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, whose statistics regarding the U.S. are virtually identical to the EIA's, yet also contains statistics for most countries and all of the continents, and thus composes a global portrait, the total share of the world's oil which Americans consumed in 2007 was 23.9%. The disproportionate consumption of this vital resource by the U.S. is a fact which is becoming increasingly well known, referenced by everyone from Barack Obama to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Although American oil consumption has been steadily rising since 1984 with a slip here and there, in November the Energy Information Administration projected that U.S. oil demand would drop by 5.4% in 2008 due to the U.S. economic downturn, the largest drop since 1980.

Barack Obama has declared that energy is the most important issue that our future economy will face. While his energy plan proposes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 through a cap and trade system, it sets no explicit goal for how much the U.S. will reduce its consumption of one of the two biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and what the Department of Energy refers to as "the lifeblood of America's economy," i.e, oil, in the short or long term.

A numerical figure for how much the U.S. will reduce its consumption of oil under his plan must be deduced from his pledge which he has declared on numerous occasions to eliminate Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil imports within 10 years. The goal in itself is an appeal to the ignorance and prejudice of Americans, and an analysis of his energy plan reveals means towards achieving it, and the greater goal of greenhouse gas emission reductions, which are contradictory, while it largely ignores the most fundamental solution which could have the most profound impact on many parts of the country, including California.

To begin with, the declaration promotes the misconception that the U.S. is dependent on the Middle East for oil, which is not the case. The United States imports more oil from the single country of Canada than it does from the Middle East. It imports more oil from South America than it does from the Middle East, and more oil from Africa than it does from the Middle East. Middle Eastern oil imports, at 2,208 thousand barrels daily, account for 16.4% of total U.S. oil imports according to the EIA. Regarding the "rogue" state of Venezuela, as Barack Obama likes to refer to it, at 1,361 thousand barrels daily, Venezuelan imports represent 10.1% of our oil imports according to the EIA. Such figures would add up to a reduction of roughly 26.5% of our total imports.

However, it is important to place these figures in context. The United States is the third largest oil producer in the world, producing 8.0% of the world's total, second only to Saudi Arabia and the Russian Federation which each produce 12.6%. The U.S. produces more oil than Canada and Mexico combined. It produces more oil than the entire Central and South American region, and it produces more than 2.5 times more oil than the country of Venezuela. This means that eliminating 26.5% of our oil imports over 10 years, only translates into reducing our overall oil consumption by 17.3% over 10 years.

To give greater perspective to this figure let us compare it to what other industrialized countries which already had lower per capita oil consumption rates accomplished during the same period of time in which the U.S. reduced its total oil consumption by 0.0003%. The United Kingdom reduced its oil consumption by 5%, driving its per capita oil consumption rate down to 40.9% that of the U.S. Switzerland reduced its oil consumption by 9.9%, driving its per capita oil consumption rate down to 47.9% that of the U.S. Germany reduced its oil consumption by 9.0%, driving its per capita oil consumption rate down to 44% that of the U.S. What these figures demonstrate, as well as the recent downturn in U.S. oil consumption, is that to propose in a costumed manner that the U.S. reduce its oil consumption by 17.3% over 10 years is hardly an ambitious goal. It is emphatically incommensurate with the larger goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

While some of his plan's proposals can work towards achieving his goal such as increasing fuel economy standards by 4 percent per year, other proposals will be largely inane within the timeframe of 10 years; such as getting 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015, which means that there will still be in excess of 250 million conventional cars on the road, and creating a $7,000 tax credit for purchasing an advanced vehicle. Regarding increasing fuel economy standards by 4 percent per year, this proposal is largely redundant because corporate average fuel economy(CAFE) standards have been legislated to increase to 35 mile per gallon by 2020 for cars and light trucks.

The primary goals embedded in Barack Obama's energy plan are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce petroleum consumption, and provide economic relief to Americans. Eliminating Middle East and Venezuelan oil imports obliquely serves the goal of reducing petroleum consumption, but does not serve the other two goals as one might imagine. The top five oil exporters to the U.S. are Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Eliminating Middle East and Venezuelan oil imports would leave as the U.S.'s primary sources of oil imports Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria. Nigeria is a country that has lived with constant political instability which would make the U.S. economy more vulnerable to a price surge; Mexico is a country with diminishing proved oil reserves, which now stand at 9.6 years of production; and Canada whose proved oil reserves stand at 22.9 years of production, presents a dilemma: oil extracted from Canada's tar sands creates 3 times the greenhouse gases which conventional oil extraction creates. The U.S.'s own proved reserves to production ratio stands at 11.7 years. Potential new sources of oil such as that extracted from shale may create as much as 4 times the greenhouse gases as conventional oil extraction creates. According to Barack Obama's energy plan, he wishes to expedite such a process.

Achieving all of the primary goals outlined in Barack Obama's energy plan is improbable because while he makes proposals to relieve economic pressure, these very same proposals stimulate consumption, such as, stimulating and expediting domestic production. Providing a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to American families from a windfall tax profits tax on oil companies will relieve economic pressure, but increase consumption. Swapping oil from the strategic petroleum reserve to drive down prices, would increase consumption.

The plan also calls for phasing in 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels into the fuel supply by 2030. A proposal that will make little difference in reducing oil consumption within a 10 year time frame, but has moderate potential in the mid to long term. Total U.S. gasoline consumption in 2007 was 142 billion gallons according to the Energy Information Administration. Diesel fuel accounted for another 64 billion gallons. We cannot assume that the price of such advanced biofuels will be lower than what the current price of gasoline is now or was several months ago.

Only at the very end of his energy plan, does Barack Obama dedicate one paragraph under the title, "Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities," to the concept that if the vast majority of the population was not compelled to drive everywhere, we would not consume nearly a quarter of the world's oil.

"Over the long term, we know that the amount of fuel we will use is directly related to our land use decisions and development patterns. For the last 100 years, our communities have been organized around the principle of cheap gasoline...They(Barack Obama and Joe Biden) believe that we must devote significantly more attention to investments that will make it easier for us to walk, bicycle and access other transportation alternatives. They are committed to reforming the federal transportation funding and leveling employer incentives for driving and public transit."

The emphasis of his plan is essentially inverted, and building more livable and sustainable communities should be a greater priority than increasing consumption. His plan does not provide details, yet Barack Obama will have the opportunity to demonstrate what he means by "reforming federal transportation funding," soon enough. A federal commission created by congress has recommended that the federal gasoline tax be raised by 10 cents and eventually by 40 cents over 5 years in order to maintain the solvency of the Federal Highway Trust Fund which funds the nations roads and highways, as well as mass transit. This is a far cry from the manner in which Hillary Clinton and John McCain appealed to the ignorance of Americans by suggesting that the federal gasoline tax be repealed, albeit in a temporary manner. Barack Obama, to his credit, did not participate in this, but according to the Associated Press, Barack Obama has expressed concern about raising fuel taxes in our current economic climate. Should one assume that Barack Obama would rather see the Federal Highway Trust Fund go bankrupt within the next couple of years than increase the federal gas tax by 10 cents?

The commission also recommended that states raise their gasoline taxes and that the government devise a different method for funding the construction and maintenance of the nation's highways. While building more highways and roads is often seen as way to relieve traffic congestion, Americans need to consider the value of constructing more roads when our society has reached a stage where dozens of millions of Americans are economically challenged by inevitably high gasoline prices, and dozens of millions of Americans can no longer afford to purchase new vehicles because of the financial crisis and the effects it has had on our economy. Moreover, the state of the economy is directly related to the disproportionate consumption of oil of our society. As the price of gasoline and diesel rose, so did the price of goods and services across the economy, straining American consumers and businesses. Conversely, as the price of gasoline rose, the value of homes in the exurbs, places which are remotely located from other population centers, began to drop. These are symptoms of an exorbitantly expensive transportation model which Americans have done very little to change.

Instead, our society has embarked on a race to develop alternative fuels and high fuel economy vehicles, before dozens of millions of Americans become trapped in their urban and suburban ghettos. Up until now, our society has achieved limited results, and based on Barack Obama's proposals and readily observable realities, we are likely to achieve limited results in the short and mid term future. Yet, there is also the opportunity for transformation. An increase in the federal gasoline tax will automatically make more money available for mass transit because 20% of the revenue is apportioned for mass transit. If the stated goals of our society are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce petroleum dependence, and improve the economy, a greater share of federal gasoline tax revenue should be apportioned for mass transit. Here, Barack Obama will have an opportunity to demonstrate how superficial or how profound the change he has proposed for America is.

Some of the cuts in oil consumption in other industrialized nations may be attributable to a slowdown in economic activity, but what is inescapable is the fundamental role which mass transit systems play in these societies. Mass transit allows these societies to maintain lower oil consumption rates and when the price of oil and its refined products climb, the citizens of the urban areas of these societies have the option to consume less, while still maintaining an adequate level of mobility. In the U.S., vast portions of its citizens simply don't have this option, our demand is inelastic. It is illustrative to point out that within the U.S., the state which has the lowest per capita gasoline consumption rate is New York. What is also inescapable, is that when the price of oil climbs, it disproportionately adversely affects the U.S. economy.

The path towards reducing petroleum dependence outlined by Barack Obama has already been traveled by California, without much success, and in other instances, such as with the aformentioned propositon 10, and in 2006 with proposition 87, which would have imposed $4 billion of taxes on oil producers to research alternative energy, rejected by California voters.

In 2000, the state legislature passed Assembly Bill 2076 which required the California Energy Commission and the California Air Resources Board to examine ways that California could reduce its dependence on petroleum. The agencies published a report in 2003 titled, "Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence." The 19 page report does not discuss mass transit. Its main recommendation was that California reduce its gasoline and diesel consumption by 15% below the 2003 level by 2020 and maintain that reduction for the foreseeable future, relying primarily on vehicle efficiency improvements and the introduction of alternative fuels to petroleum.

From 2003 to 2007 gasoline sales generally increased and the difference between the two years was an increase of .0007% by 2007 in California. The Board of Equalization has not yet reported sales for the fourth quarter of 2008, but for the first three quarters of 2008, gasoline sales dropped by 3.8% compared to the first three quarters of 2007, and dropped 3.3% compared to the first three quarters of 2003. Regarding diesel sales in California, from 2003 to 2007, they increased by 15.5%. For the first three quarters of 2008 compared to the first three quarters of 2003, diesel sales increased by 8%.

The recent drop in petroleum consumption is largely due to the dire effects that $3.50 an $4.00 per gallon gasoline has had on our economy. Which is why recommending that California reduce its petroleum consumption by 15% below 2003 levels by 2020 in 2003 was a recommendation that did not seem to have much of a practical application to reality. What is the point of reducing petroleum dependence by 15% below 2003 levels by 2020 if our economy will have collapsed by then, from the weight of that petroleum dependence? The authors of these studies are no doubt experts at making calculations and figuring out what can be produced with available resources and assumed to be available resources, but not everybody can know everything. I doubt that they had the predictive ability to have anticipated the burst of the housing bubble, the financial crisis, that American car companies would be on the verge of bankruptcy, the degree or severity with which climate change occurs, the record high unemployment figures, the degree to and pace at which oil demand increases in Asia and Latin America and the inevitable economic squeeze this creates for the radically car dependent American population. Otherwise, their recommendation would not be logical. Not considering mass transit as a viable option towards reducing petroleum consumption and not pursposefully creating a more sustainable environment was, and is, willful ignorance.

As examples of this willful ignorance consider the responses which I received in 2005 from some of the principle authors of the aforementioned report. Susan Brown wrote, "Based on available research, and our analysis of the potential for public transit in the technical appendices to the AB 2076 Report, we concluded that even doubling use of public transit in California, would have a minor(as I recall about 2 percent effect) on reducing petroleum demand."

Yes, if vehicle miles traveled by mass transit are 1% of total vehicle miles traveled in California, as was determined by the authors in the appendices, doubling use of mass transit would only reduce petroleum dependence by 2 percent or some other small figure, assuming that doubling the use of mass transit would bring total vehicle miles traveled by mass transit to a whopping 2%. Yet, imagine a mass transit revolution that created the type of mass transit systems that Europeans enjoy. California is the 8th largest economy in the world and Californians spent nearly $60 billion on gasoline and diesel in 2007. What is lacking is not resources, but will and imagination.

Gerry Bemis provided me an equally obtuse response: "The Energy Commission sees mass transit as providing only a modest reduction in petroleum demand, maybe 5% or so. Not every city has an efficient transit system…Much of Sacramento is not well served by our transit system due to the length of trips and/or need for multiple transfers."

While California's official policies remain heavily biased and weighted towards alternative fuels, policy makers have opened their minds to the role that mass transit can and will have to play. In response to Assembly Bill 1007, passed in 2005, the CEC and CARB published in 2007 a report titled, "State Alternative Fuels Plan." The plan proposes that a five part strategy is needed to meet California's greenhouse gas emission and petroleum consumption reduction goals. Part of that strategy is to "maximize the use of mass transit, encourage smart growth and land use planning to help reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled."

In discussing California's gasoline and diesel consumption which has increased nearly 50 percent since 1986, the report cites, "lack of mass transit" among the reasons for this increase.

The report also acknowledges that "alternative fuels alone will not be sufficient to meet California's aggressive 2050 GHG emissions reduction goal." It states that reducing green house gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 could occur by, among other things, "Increasing use of mass transit and public transportation, as an alternative to personal motor vehicle use."

The strategy that California is pursuing is likely over dependent on alternative fuels, and does not emphasize conservation enough. According to the report, "The transportation fuel market is enormously complex...To understand the magnitude of this undertaking, increasing the use of non-petroleum fuels to 20 percent of on-road fuel demand by 2020 is equivalent to 4.8 billion gallons of non-petroleum fuels. Achieving this goal will require the introduction and use of an additional 370 million gallons of new non-petroleum fuel supplies into the California transportation market each year, or about 1 million gallons of new supply each day for the next 12 years."

If California's plan as outlined in the report is successfully executed, it would mean that by 2020, largely due to inevitable population growth, Californians will consume 19.2 billion gallons of petroleum based fuels. This is a small increase in demand on our part, while there may be less supply on the the world market, at the same time that demand in diverse parts of the world will have increased. Based on the observable effects of maintaining such a high volume of consumption in current economic conditions, it is remotely possible that consuming nearly 20 billion gallons of petroleum based fuels in the near future is even sustainable. It is apparent more than ever that mass transit is an absolute economic necessity, apart from being an ecological and cultural one as well.

Since 2003 when "Reducing California's Petroluem Dependence" was published, the state of California has consumed roughly 88 billion gallons of gasoline. Increased taxation of 20 cents per gallon would have resulted in $17.6 billion that could have been partially or completely spent to fund the world class mass transit California direly needs. If, according to the State Alternative Fuels Plan, "by enacting AB 1007, the Governor and Legislature have established that it is now the clear and unambiguous policy of the State of California to move decisively away from petroleum fuels," then it is logical to discourage the widespread indiscriminate consumption of petroleum fuels, particularly because of the profound ecological damage which they cause. Increased taxation nominally raises the cost, yet over time it can reduce and moderate prices by moderating demand, if such taxes were to be invested in mass transit. Thus, increased petroleum fuel taxation is completely logical.

Standing in the way of this, are Republicans who are philosophically against any and all tax increases, and in the midst of California's budget crisis have signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Due to the fact that a two thirds majority of the legislature is required in California to raise taxes or pass a budget, Republicans, who hold slightly more than one third of legislative seats, can hold the state hostage and impede progress.

Over the years, Democrats have for the most part been ineffective in challenging the absolute irrationality of the Republican position. Among their recent proposals is to eliminate the gasoline tax and replace it with a per gallon fee which would be 13 cents higher than the current tax. As the Los Angeles Times explains, this scheme threatens funding for mass transit on the part of the state of California, because such "fees" may not be able to be used to fund mass transit. Yet, according to the L.A. Times editorial board, Democrats feel compelled to do this because of the absolute refusal of Republicans to consider any tax increase in order to balance the state's budget. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in an acute contradiction to AB 1007 and AB 32, and the general perception of him as a "green" politician, has cut funding for mass transit by billions of dollars while in office. The governor and Republican legislators are part of the American mindset which simply does not see value in mass transit and condemns our society to disproportionate oil consumption and ecological destruction.

Under the current manner which the gasoline tax is apportioned, 20% of the revenue goes to mass transit. Yet, to be consistent with our official goals and laws, it should be higher than this. Mike Fueur who authored AB 2321 which authorized placing Measure R on the Los Angeles county ballot, proposed in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece in 2007 that the state legislature could give priority to mass transit or at least establish parity between mass transit and highway construction and maintenance with a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature. Perhaps Californians will have to recall the current governor or certain Republican legislators, wait to achieve a Democratic super majority in the legislature, use the initiative process, or hope that several Republican legislators see the light.

Los Angelenos have already voted to invest 26 additional billion dollars(65% of the expected 40 billion from Measure R)over the next thirty years to fund mass transit in Los Angeles, yet they can also have a decisive influence on statewide policy, thus generating greater investment in mass transit in Los Angeles. Los Angeles county is neither the most conservative, nor the most liberal county in the state. This, combined with the fact of it being the most populous county perfectly positions it to shift the weight of the state in whatever direction it sways. We have the opportunity to transform our society in a profound manner.

The primary goals which Barack Obama has outlined in his energy plan will be achievable if mass transit plays a far greater role in his plan. When I look out upon the freeways of Los Angeles, a city of nearly 4 million people which has the worst traffic and air quaility in the country, and is part of a county of 10 million people, which in itself is the 17th largest economy in the world, what occurs to me is that what is fundamentally wrong with our society is not Middle Eastern or Venezuelan oil imports, what is fundamentally wrong is that the car is the primary mode of transportation. Ignoring such a fundamental solution leaves Barack Obama chasing ghosts and bogeymen, illustrated by his pledge to "crack down on excessive energy speculation."

The fiscal year 2009 budget of the main local transit agency, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, was $3.408 billion. Out of this figure, $397 million or 11.6% came from the federal government, $974 million or 28.6% came from the state, but the largest part of the budget, $1.561 billion or 45.8%, came from Propositions A and C, which each represent a half cent of the local county sales tax, and were approved in previous decades. If the amount of money which the federal government contributes to the budget of the LACMTA does not significantly increase under the Barack Obama administration, with complete justification we will be able to declare that Barack Obama is a farce.

Local officials, expect a better performance from Barack Obama than George Bush. Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's press secretary Matt Szabo told the L.A. Times, "We have for the first time in Washington an administration that intends to invest in public transportation." How much remains to be seen. California is experiencing it's worst budget crisis ever, the American economy threatens to collapse, the new President makes public statements that can't be believed; in the midst of all this, there remains, the opportunity to create a mass transit revolution that will not only transform the transportation system, but can also be the foundation of a vast transformation of the socio-economic structure of the society.

2009-01-21T11:48:00.001-08:00

The Most Memorable of Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech

This is perhaps the most inspiring speech I've ever heard an American president deliver. Among the most memorable quotes are the following:

"The world has changed, and we must change with it."

"In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: 'Let it be told to a future world , that in the depth of winter when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country alarmed at one common danger came forth to meet it.' America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words with hope and virtue. Let us brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us we carried forth this great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

I find it interesting that he compared our current state of affairs to the coldest of months, to the hardest of times, to a moment when the outcome of the American revolution was most in doubt; as if the country itself is crossing such a moment right now, as if the empire and the society it sustains is on the edge of collapse.

2009-01-06T13:08:00.001-08:00

Whatever You Want to Hear

Today I was thinking about how, in many parts of the world, such as here in Los Angeles, the average person has the opportunity to communicate with more people in the world than ever was possible. and that it is a relatively new phenomenon. The quantity and diversity of people with which one can communicate is astonishing.

In the past there were brilliant and successful writers who came to share their ideas and their words with millions of people. Yet for a lot of them it took them a lifetime of work to accomplish it. Miguel Cervantes did not publish the first part of Don Quijote until he was 58 years old. Others had prodigious production. Supposedly Anton Chekhov had already written 500 short stories by the age of 28. In any case, they had to sell millions of books to accomplish it.

Today, its possible to communicate with millions of people without being a brilliant writer, without selling a single book, in a relatively short time. The person can even be from the lower class.

Besides words, photography, animation, and video are also powerful methods of communication. Why are people in Greenland watching a video about a North American rapper talking about revolution? Such questions come up after observing the statistics which Youtube provides people who upload videos.

The video which I have placed here takes place in an apartment with a single lady who is neither nude, nor taking her clothes off, nor dancing or singing. The original video in Spanish has received 78,726,144 views and is the 7th top video of all time on Youtube. This version has English subtitles.

2009-01-02T04:21:00.000-08:00

50 Years of Revolution: Fidel Castro Speaks to the Americas in English

In May 2003, ex-Cuban president Fidel Castro was in Argentina to attend the inauguration of the new Argentinean president, Nestor Kirchner. Just two months earlier, the United States had plunged itself into a world of intellectual darkness by pre-emptively and illegally invading Iraq. Against this backdrop, Fidel Castro delivered a 2 1/2 hour speech on the steps of the law school to thousands of Argentineans, yet the footage has the feeling as if he was speaking to the entire continental mass that comprises the Americas.

In these videos, 44 minutes have been excerpted and provided with translation so that people from the English speaking world have the opportunity to form a better criteria by which to judge one of the most historically important Americans(in this sense, someone from either of the Americas) of the 20th and 21st century.

After 50 years of revolution, 47 years of an embargo, hundreds of assassination plots, one failed invasion, and unquantifiable lies and slander by the United States government and American media outlets, the world faces the prospect of a crumbling American empire and a Cuban revolution that will survive it in the context of an increasingly independent and socialist Latin America. The multi-polar world is a reality.

By 2003, the beginnings of change had begun to manifest themselves, as Fidel Castro explains towards the end of his speech. In these 44 minutes, he discusses the Bush doctrine, education, health, immigration, the Cuban electoral system, mass media and communication, and neoliberal globalization. He even touches upon "an international economic crisis."

2008-01-21T17:03:00.000-08:00

Multi-Ethnic California: Make This Dream Real

Today is Martin Luther King Day, and the media is surely running superficial pieces about the civil rights leader and asking the probable question, How long have we come in achieving Martin Luther King's dream? Or perhaps, what does Martin Luther King's dream mean today?

The dream of Martin Luther King is not possible to achieve without socialism. In fact, one of his statements which he expressed on more than one occasion during his later years was that, "What this country needs is a radical redistribution of economic power." How is it possible to achieve redistribution of economic power without progressive taxation that invests in the social and economic needs of society such as healthcare, education, and mass transit?

His dream may have been expressed in terms of black children and white children joining hands as sisters and brothers, but to achieve such a vision, far more is needed than to erase prejudice and teach children the value of diversity. If one child has healthcare and one doesn't; if one has a quality education and the other one's is underfunded at the federal, state, and local level; if one child's family has the privilege of polluting the planet by driving and not experiencing it as an economic challenge, while the other one's family has the necessity of polluting the planet by driving due to horrible mass transit and experiences it as an economic challenge when the price of fuel escalates; it becomes apparent how far we are from achieving the dream. It also becomes apparent that our socio-economic structure is very far from the principles of Martin Luther King. Such a socio-economic structure could never produce the harmony which MLK spoke of, and in fact, it actually creates prejudice, fear, and racism.

Everybody knows that this country has been experiencing a cycle of concentration of wealth for at least since Reagan was President. How can this cycle be reversed? There would need to be made numerous policy changes, but I will use an example inspired from the radically car dependent metropolis of Los Angeles to illustrate the redistribution of economic power which King spoke of and relate it to the concentration of wealth which our country has been experiencing.

In Los Angeles as in most of California, almost everyone drives. Only about 6% of Los Angelenos use mass transit to get to work. Yet, demand for greater service is evident from the crowded buses and the packed subway. A lot of people can't afford to drive, either because they don't own a car or owning a car plus the additional costs of maintaining it are too high. Others who are challenged by high gasoline prices would like to have the option to use mass transit, but it is so inefficient that they prefer to pay whatever the price of gasoline is. If one subscribes to the notion that time is money, using mass transit in Los Angeles is very expensive, particularly if one considers the recent fare hike for a day pass from $3 to $5.

Of the billions of dollars which Californians spend annually on gasoline(we consume 16 billion gallons per year) a small percentage of it goes to the state in the form of taxes, the majority of it goes to oil companies, contributing to their record profits. As we can see, our socio-economic structure contributes to the cycle of concentration of wealth, and to reverse this cycle it will be necessary to make changes to the socio-economic structure.

Whenever the price of gasoline rises above $3.00, people inevitably complain and media outlets do stories discussing people's "pain." People demonize oil companies, yet we have the power to undermine their business by taxing their product and funding the only viable alternative to the massive gasoline consumption we are currently enslaved to, which is mass transit. Such a policy change would result in Californians contributing less of their income to oil companies, and contributing their income to diverse sources within their local communities, or keeping it for themselves in the form of savings.

Regarding other alternatives, such as hydrogen, ethanol, electric cars, and hybrids, we must be realistic. Hydrogen is currently not economically viable and will not be ecologically viable until we can produce vast amounts of green electricity. Ethanol is neither ecologically nor economically viable on a scale large enough to significantly reduce petroleum dependence. Electric cars and hybrids hold promise but are expensive(the upcoming Roadster costs $100,000) and can only have a limited impact in the near and mid-term future.

Most economists believe that gasoline should be taxed at a higher rate. In an article discussing why economists favor increasing the gas tax, one expert stated, "Of all the ways that U.S. consumers can spend their money, buying fuel for their cars contributes the least to the economy." I merely propose a 10 cent increase to fund mass transit with the purpose of reducing gasoline dependence, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing traffic, reducing air pollution, improving the economy, and contributing to a redistribution of economic power; from the oil companies, to the people.

Traditionally, the gasoline tax was one of, if not the most regressive taxes, but this is not the case anymore because like I previously stated, a lot of people can't afford to drive, or would like to drive less for economic reasons. Imposing a tax on ourselves which would bring tangible benefits and redistribute economic power would open our eyes to other forms of progressive taxation to fund the social and economic needs of our society such as socialized medicine and an equitable, high quality education system.

In a speech titled, "Where Do We Go From Here?" King stated, "What I'm saying to you this morning is that communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both." King's words remind us that capitalism and socialism are concepts, ideas and that every society manifests them in their own way. Western Europe is a useful example for our society. Countries such as England, Germany, France, etc are capitalist societies, but they have socialized medicine. They have forms of progressive taxation that provide for the social and economic needs of the society.

When someone such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose political philosophy of being against any and all tax increases is diametrically opposed to King's, is invited to speak at a Martin Luther King event, I get the sense that people must not know anything about Martin Luther King besides that he was a great speaker and that he wanted all of us to get along. As if good feelings solve problems. Life is far more complex, and prejudice and racism are endemic in the Los Angeles metropolis.

We will not reach the paradise of equality, opportunity, and brotherhood unless we change a sado-masochistic socio-economic structure that leaves the society rotting, waiting to explode. We will not create a common culture that values and respects our differences, and instead will have a fragmented society of warring ethnic enclaves, unless we embrace socialism.

2007-07-13T12:53:00.000-07:00

Facing Reality

A couple of days ago an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times titled Needed by 2050: decked freeways, tunnels, tolls, trains citing studies which calculate that $140 billion needs to be spent in six Southern California counties in the next 30 years to keep congestion in check. It also cites the state Department of Finance which forecasts that California's population will increase to 60 million by 2050 and Southern California's population will increase to 31.6 million.

"Many say boosting the gas tax would be the most logical way to collect more revenue. But it is politically unpopular with prices at the pump so high. California and the federal government each impose a gasoline tax of 18 cents a gallon, a rate that has not changed since the early 1990s despite a sharp rise in gas prices. Because the tax has not been adjusted for inflation, California has struggled merely to maintain its existing roads."

What should be discussed is that increasing the gasoline tax has the potential to stabilize gasoline prices by reducing demand for gasoline if enough of the revenues are invested in mass transit. Funding mass transit will give millions of Californians the option of not consuming gasoline or driving at all. This will improve the economy as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How is it that California with a population of 38 million consumes more gasoline than the modern industrialized nation of Germany with a population of 82 million? The Germans rely on alternative fuels to a greater degree than Californians, but the huge difference is mass transit.

The article also mentions that several Southern California counties have a sales tax that is dedicated to transportation. In Los Angeles county the 1 cent per $1 tax goes to funding mass transit mostly. Increasing such a tax for the purpose of funding mass transit would increase the financially beleaguered local mass transit agency's budget by nearly 25%.

The mainstream media and the society are beginning to consider solutions, which only a couple of years ago, were not even mentioned. Californians can no longer afford the car as the primary mode of transportation. This is a reality we must face. Taxes, for the purpose of funding mass transit, are good.

2007-05-27T16:52:00.000-07:00

The Battle for Mass Transit in Los Angeles

I arrived at the MTA's public hearing on the MTA's fare proposal to find that the meeting room was already full to capacity. A representative from the MTA announced that as long as attendants filled out a speaker form by 10am they would be alllowed to speak for one minute. By the time I filled one out, 287 people had already done so, which I thought was great. Soon thereafter the lobby of the building became full and security stopped allowing people into the building all together. I left and returned several hours later, since I figured if most of the people before me who had signed up to speak followed through it would take at least 4 hours.

I was among a lot of people who was shut out of the proceedings, so I was unaware that the board was considering a compromise proposal that involved less drastic fare hikes. I based my public commentary on the figures that had been looming before us for more than a month; an $8 day pass and a $120 monthly pass.

I was also unaware that that morning Antonio Villaraigosa had held a press conference to propose an alternative that involved raising fares by a mere %5 annually as well as borrowing. Supposedly he had released a blueprint on Monday, which I was unaware of. Were you aware of it? It wasn't on his website. For weeks the mayor said nothing about the fare hikes. I called his office several times over the course of several weeks, inquiring as to what his position was on this matter, but could not get an answer. For a mayor that talks such an excellent game on mass transit, I found the behavior strange, even disturbing.

I stand by my charges against him. He doesn't have the balls to challenge the anti-tax philosophy of conservative anglo-saxons. It is a charge that extends to the entire political establishment. There is a dragon that dominates society, and on it's scales are written the words, "Thou shalt not raise taxes." For people who want to transform the society, the challenge is to slay that dragon.

The Los Angeles Times has been citing the following statistic: the median household income for bus riders is $12,000. Based on the cost of housing in Los Angeles, it is hard to imagine that a person who earns that much could possibly consume more than $2,000 to $3,000 in taxable products and services. For such a person, a half cent increase in the local county sales tax would represent 10 to 15 more additional dollars in taxes per year. Nearly half of the MTA's budget is already financed by %1 of the local county sales tax, and a half cent increase would logically generate a proportionate amount. After Thursday's vote, such a person will be paying at least $23 more in fares per month by July 2009.

When the most regressive tax of all, the sales tax, represents such a sheer economic benefit to the poorest people of the society, it is time to slay the dragon. The ecological catastrophe we are facing as well as the inevitable, predictable, escalation in fuel prices and the possibility of fuel shortages should motivate us to do so. Our radical dependence on the automobile as the primary mode of transportation does not make sense either from an ecological point of view or an economic point of view. According to this Yahoo article citing the Government Accountability Office, the increase in U.S. gasoline prices this year has cost consumers an extra $20 billion, or about $146 for each passenger car. Complaining, handwringing and demonizing oil companies is pointless. The solution to the gasoline crisis is to increase the gasoline tax and fund mass transit. This can be done on the local, state and/or federal level.

For anti-tax people who may believe in their right to consume gasoline gratuitously, I suggest that they join the armed forces and enlist to fight in Iraq to secure oil resources. This Memorial Day, let us acknowledge the real reason why our soldiers are occupying a foreign country.

Before Thursday's fare hikes, Los Angeles had a mediocre mass transit system. After Thursday's fare hikes, Los Angeles continues to have a mediocre mass transit system. The only way to vastly improve it is through additional revenue through tax increases.

I plan on buying a car soon. I will be happy to pay $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline. How much better the society would be from an ecological, economic, and cultural perspective if people could live their lives to the fullest, as they can in other industrialized societies, without the necessity of owning a car. Unfortunately, there are too many irrational people in our society, and too many people who don't have the balls to challenge these people, and yet other people who are oblivious.

2007-05-21T07:02:00.000-07:00

The Disturbing Case of Antonio Villaraigosa

As some of you may know, the Los Angeles MTA has announced astonishing fare hikes. A day pass will increase from $3 to $5 in July and to $8 by January, 2009, and a monthly pass will go from $52 to $75 in July and to $120 in January, 2009.

Not only will these fare hikes punish poor people, the proposal presented by MTA officials works against the declared goals of our society of reducing petroleum dependence, decreasing traffic, improving air quality, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Apart from this, the proposal contradicts just about every public statement Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has ever made about mass transit.

During the first mayoral debate he declared that "we must build mass transit on a scale we've never seen before." The proposal also includes service cuts.

During his campaign he made the claim that traffic costs the Los Angeles economy $11 billion dollars per year. This proposal will surely cause more people to drive.

Recently, during his state of the city address, he said, "We are the impoverished inheritors of a persistent refusal to plan and invest. As a result, we waste more time stuck in traffic. We get less time with our kids. And we spend more days of the year choked by smog."

He is widely regarded as a visionary political leader. He seems to understand that the car as the primary mode of transportation will only provide diminishing results. In one of his earliest speeches he declared, "We are not going to build more freeways in the city of Los Angeles."

In another of his early speeches he said, "You can use public transit. You can get where you want to go. We've got to start to articulate that vision for the city, or this isn't going to be a city where any of us want to live."

The MTA's proposal makes us the perpetuators of "a persistent refusal to plan and invest," and with the predictable results of increased traffic and pollution, contributes to a degradation of the quality of life of the region. For these reasons, it is astounding and disturbing to observe Antonio Villaraigosa's silence on this matter.

Another quote from the state of the city address: "It is outrageously shortsighted to shortchange transit investments in California's most gridlocked cities. "

When we consider how a world class mass transit system for a city like Los Angeles might be funded and sustained, consider how the MTA is currently funded. Almost half of it's budget is derived from 1% of the local county sales tax. A half-cent increase in the local county sales tax would result in at least 600 hundred million dollars in additional revenue. For a person that consumes $4,000 in taxable goods and services in a year, such an increase would represent a mere $20 in additional taxes.

According to the FY07 budget $338.8 million is derived from .25% of the 7.25% retail sales tax collected statewide under the Transportation Development Act. Additionally, $67.9 million is derived from the statewide 4.75% sales tax on diesel fuel and 4.75% sales tax on $0.09 of the state excise tax on gasoline under the State Transit Assistance program. It is the “spillover” funds from this program which Arnold Schwarzenegger is withholding from mass transit agencies.

Earlier this year when the California Transportation Committee shortchanged the county of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa led a diligent effort to claim L.A.'s share and even passed out flyers to motorists urging them to call the CTC and demand L.A.'s fair share. Most of those funds are assigned for roads and highways. There is no such effort by Antonio Villaraigosa on the part of mass transit.

That 28% of California's population resides in Los Angeles county gives the region the power and influence to shape the transportation policy of the entire state of California. A mere 10 cent increase in the gasoline tax dedicated to mass transit would result in revenue of $1.6 billion annually. Even the Los Angeles Times recently suggested that the gasoline tax should be raised or indexed to inflation.

As we can see, there are numerous options for Los Angelenos to consider regarding how to increase funding for mass transit in the region with the aim to vastly improve it. As the political leader of the region and gubernatorial hopeful, Antonio Villaraigosa has the opportunity to boldly lead the transformation of the region's transportation system, and even that of the entire state, but instead he lacks the balls to challenge the philosophy of conservative anglo-saxons which opposes any and all tax increases. A tax increase for the purpose of funding mass transit would help our society fulfill its declared goals, as well as help regulate the price of gasoline by relieving demand.

The number to the mayor's office is 213-978-0600. Perhaps the reader will be interested in encouraging the mayor to either find his balls or his principles and to state a position on the MTA's proposed fare hikes that is consistent with the declared goals of our society as well as his own public statements.

2007-05-07T21:49:00.000-07:00

Villaraigosa: I Am Responsible
When a mayor makes hiring 1,000 more police officers an integral part of his platform, and the city's police force fucks up as bad as it did this past Tuesday, their shit can smear his face and make him look like a traitor to his people.

To prevent this, and of course, in order to repair the relationship between the police and the community, the mayor has visited churches, attended civic events, and even ate tacos in MacArthur park according to The Los Angeles Times. The people have received him with a lot of affection according to this article in La Opinion which mentions a mayor which kisses babies, hugs women, and pats men on their backs. He even makes speeches in Spanish.

Here are some of the statements he made according to La Opinion.

"I am responsible. Like every Angeleno, I am profoundly and personally worried about the events of May 1st. They hit me hard."

"What happened on May 1st was wrong, and as mayor I am here to work as hard as possible to correct it."

According to another article in La Opinion, " I came to this church because it is the closest one to MacArthur Park. I came to tell this community, to my people...that I know that in these times we pray for peace, but we also pray for justice, because without justice there is no peace."

"What we saw on May 1st is unacceptable, it's something which cannot happen, and I pledge to you that I will make sure that people assume responsibility for this, because our community has the right to march and to demonstrate."

The truth, I am impressed. I don't doubt that he is sincere. I know I supported him for mayor for a good reason.

I wish he would do as good a job discussing, repudiating, and suggesting alternatives to the MTA's atrocious fare hike proposals. Such proposals are against the declared goals of our society of reducing petroleum dependence, reducing traffic, improving air quality, and reducing green house gas emissions. They are even against everything he's ever said about mass transit and reducing traffic. His silence on this issue is astonishing and at this point it can only be interpreted as a tacit endorsement. I ask myself, where is the Antonio Villaraigosa that makes brilliant speeches when it comes to this issue? Where are his balls? Where are his principles? Anyone can condemn what happened on May 1st. His charisma will not benefit us when we face unnecessarily exorbitant fares.

2007-05-02T04:32:00.000-07:00

May 1st, Koreatown Is Transformed Again

On May 1st, 2007 the afternoon march that began on Vermont and 3rd on behalf of immigrant rights made its way down Vermont Ave. transforming the neighborhood of Koreatown, although marginally. Whereas last year's march took up the entire width of Wilshire Blvd., this year's march was confined to the sidewalk. Also, only a fraction of businesses closed, whereas last year the vast majority of businesses in the neighborhood closed.

Unfortunately, the rally which followed the march at MacArthur Park ended with the LAPD firing rubber bullets at the assembled crowd. From what I perceive and I was there but left shortly before it happened, the LAPD and the perspective of conservative white people which they represent, could not stand to see people which they regard as not having a right to be here gathered in a park. A place which on any given day is filled with people regardless.

2007-05-01T04:34:00.000-07:00

May 1st, Koreatown Joins

This is footage from last year's historic economic boycott and afternoon march. For one afternoon, the Koreatown neighborhood was transformed.

2007-04-23T02:13:00.000-07:00

Antonio Villaraigosa's Position on the MTA's Proposed Fare Hike?

The Los Angeles MTA has proposed drastic fare hikes that will punish poor people and fuck over everybody in the society regardless of economic class by working against the stated goals of our society of reducing petroleum dependence, decreasing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So naturally, I'm very interested in what Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's position on this matter is. I need to know. So far he has remained silent, but this will certainly become more astonishing.

On a recent trip to Washington in which Los Angeles City Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa sought additional resources for our region, Mr. Villaraigosa referred to California as the 7th largest economy in the world. The MTA's budget refers to Los Angeles County as the 17th largest economy of the world. When Mr. Villaraigosa was elected in 2005, it made international news.

According to this La Opinion article, California is the 12th largest emiter of greenhouse gases in the world, with 41% of these coming from transportation. The battle over the MTA's proposed fare increases and service cuts is more than a local issue. It is a state, national, and even international issue. It is more than a battle of poor people attempting to maintain an affordable transportation option, it is also a battle over how to reduce petroleum dependence in the world's largest consumer of gasoline besides the U.S., how to fight global warming, and how to improve the quality of life of the region.

Videos uploaded to YouTube by Daehansong

2007-03-29T18:26:00.000-07:00

An Alternative to L.A. Metro's Fare Hikes

In a region which is regarded as having the worst traffic in the country, the local transit agency has announced astonishing fare hikes and service cuts which will certainly give people incentive to drive, thus increasing congestion. The price of a day pass will rise from $3.00 to $5.00 in July and to $8.00 in January 2009, according to various news reports including this article in The Daily News. The cost of a monthly pass will rise from $52 to $75 in July and to $120 in January 2009. The MTA at this point has not published anything on its website regarding this proposed rate hike.

The fare hikes come at a time when the car as the primary mode of transportation strains the society and becomes ever more expensive. Ironically, by so drastically raising the price of the alternative, more people will buy into the exorbitantly expensive transportation model and exacerbate the problems associated with it. However, there are alternatives that would yield far more beneficial results to the society than the proposed fare hikes.

The majority of the MTA's budget is derived from the local county sales tax. Propositions A and C each represent .5% of the local sales tax. A similar increase in the sales tax could potentially increase the MTA budget by 25%. Such an increase would represent an additional $20 per year in taxes for a person who spends $4,000 per year on consumer goods and services, a very small sum for the enormous benefits of improved mass transit such a tax increase could yield.

The local economy would benefit if the population were to reduce gasoline consumption because most of the money which pays for gas leaves the local economy. Improved and affordable mass transit would free greater amounts of people to reduce their gasoline consumption, allowing for greater amounts of dollars to be spent on diverse local sources and to recirculate within the local economy.

Gasoline is now $3.19 per gallon at the gas station near my home, yet there are other palpable signs as to how the car as the primary mode of transportation strains the society; for example, the recent allocation of the Proposition 1B bonds by the California Transportation Commitee. Los Angeles found itself shortchanged, and thanks to the effectiveness of its polititcal leaders the situation was rectified, but what has become apparent is that the cost for road and highway construction and maintenance throughout the state not only exceeds what Californians currently pay through taxes, but also what they have borrowed and burdened the state with. The Los Angeles Times and La Opinion cited numerous counties that received less than they had hoped for as well as projects that were omitted from funding. Speaker Fabian Nuñez told La Opinion that he would seek another $5 billion dollar bond for 2008 if the CTC failed to do enough to relieve traffic.

Another indicator of how expensive our transportation model is are recent reports stating that demand for ethanol will result in farmers producing less food which will lead to higher food prices. According to Wired magazine's exuberantly optmistic story regarding the gasoline crises, the US would have to set aside 25% of its arable land for corn production in order to replace our total gas consumption with ethanol. However, this Los Angeles Times article depicts a far more daunting, almost farcical scenario. "To achieve Brazil's results, the U.S. would have to turn all of its crop-producing acreage over to corn and use all of the corn for ethanol." There is one E85(85% ethanol; 15% gasoline) dispensing station open to the public in the entire state of California!

Finally, the Federal High Trust Fund which is funded by the federal tax(18.3 cents per gallon) on gasoline is projected to go into a deficit within 2 years. This trend is largely attributed to automotive technology having become more fuel efficient over the years. Interestingly, 80 percent of the federal fund goes to highway construction and it is this portion of the fund that is careening towards a deficit. According to a Daily News article, "Brian Turmail, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Transportation, said commissioners are asking why all the increased spending on road projects isn't paying off. Roads are still congested. Traffic is getting worse."

The other 20 percent of the fund which goes towards mass transit projects is not expected to go into deficit. As is often the case in the media regarding stories about the escalation of the price of gas or traffic, a spokesperson from the Southern California Auto Club was consulted by The Daily News. As alternative revenue options for the fund Dan Beal cited increasing the number of toll roads and raising toll fares during rush hour as well as charging drivers by the mile.

At this point it may occur to one that the federal government should increase the gasoline tax. It would seem like an increase in the gasoline tax with a greater portion of the total fund assigned to mass transit would be logical. Certainly the MTA would be a beneficiary. The contribution which the federal government made to the MTA's current budget is $404 million, or a mere 13.4%. It's a decision the federal government will have to confront soon. It is also an opportunity which Californians can seize for themselves. One of the advantages of Californians increasing their gasoline tax would be that Californians would recieve 100% of the tax, instead of the 90 or so percent that we recieve from what we pay into the federal gas tax.

A mere 10 cent increase in the state gas tax would raise $1.6 billion annually according to figures from the California Energy Commission. Money which unlike bonds, the state wouldn't have to pay back at double the rate. Increasing the gas tax and funding mass transit is more likely to reduce traffic than continuing to borrow billions of dollars to build roads and expand highway capacity, while maintaining a complete lack of emphasis on reducing car ownership.

The orange line which cost a relatively speaking mere $313 million dollars has widely exceeded ridership expectations. In less than one year it reached the ridership forecast for the year 2020. Shortly after it opened there was a study done whose results were published in the Los Angeles Times which found that the orange line had improved the performance of the 101 freeway by reducing the time that cars spent on the freeway as well as by allowing more cars to pass through.

Los Angeles mass transit is gradually, slowly being improved. The changes are real and noticeable. Yet we could accelerate the process through small tax increases and create significant improvements in traffic, conservation, and air quality, as well as potentially stabilize gas prices through reduced demand. The LACMTA claims to be "America's Best" and has been named "Outstanding Transportation System" by the American Public Transportation Association, a title which means the MTA has increased mass transit options. The reality remains that our mass transit system is far beneath the standards of the mass transit systems of other big cities in the world.

Every year there are reports in local papers citing studies which claim that the average Los Angelino spends 90 something hours per year stuck in traffic. Yet, where are the studies documenting how much time Los Angelenos who primarily rely on mass transit lose waiting for infrequent buses, buses that move slowly because they're packed, or having to wait extra time because they've been stranded by buses which were too packed to pickup additional people? Where is the study which figures out how many thousands of young people in Los Angeles find it very difficult if not impossible to live life to the fullest because they don't own a car and have to rely on an inadequate mass transit system?

In a society where everyone is compelled to own a car, perhaps it's not the traffic that is that bad, perhaps it's the mass transit that is worse, and improving the latter will improve the former. Yet the MTA's proposed fare hikes and service cuts undermine its own success and its mission of providing an "efficient and effective transportation system for Los Angeles County."

It is remarkable to observe that a mayor such as Antonio Villaraigosa that talks an excellent game regarding mass transit, who even made the claim that traffic costs the Los Angeles economy $11 billion per year during his campaign, either does not have the vision or the balls to challenge the irrational and impractical view that opposes any and all tax increases, and instead would prefer to see poor Los Angelenos pay $8 for a day pass, for the mass transit system to remain inadequate, and for traffic to be inevitably adversely affected. He often goes to Washington to seek money for our region but as the statistics show, he has not been very successful in procuring funding for our mass transit agency. What he ignores is the opportunity which our region has to create additional funding for mass transit far beyond what the federal government currently gives us.

Compare and contrast the prospect of increasing the gas tax to fund mass transit and other transportation needs to the tortured, contrived to perpetuate vested interests solution which the elitists of our society are proposing; that a series of toll roads which will charge drivers anywhere from $3 to who knows how much, as well as charging people by the mile. The current toll road being proposed that will cut through San Onofre state park is illustrative of the problems associated with this approach, among them being environmental degradation including the possible destruction of endangered species.

As further evidence of how limiting subservience to this faux populism which opposes any and all tax increases is consider Arnold Schwarzenegger's astoundingly unrealistic and idiotic response in this video during last year's gubernatorial debate regarding what policies California should adopt in response to rising gas prices. Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to be suggesting that Californians who are economically challenged by high gas prices should buy a hydrogen car!

Such torpidness, unfortunately, translates into bad policy and bad decision making. An example being Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent decision to withhold $1.1 billion from the sales tax on gas from mass transit agencies. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a champion of the philosophy which opposes any and all tax increases, but the result of applying such to policy making is that the state of California has taken on $60.5 billion in debt since he took office.

In conclusion, consider what Roger Snoble, LACMTA CEO told Mass Transit magazine in their April 2005 issue, "Somewhere along the line, buying a house in the valley and having three or four cars can't be the answer...we just can't sustain those cars. We're already in a gridlock, and it's going to get worse."

The solution is not to impose a sado-masochistic fare structure, but to transform the transportation system of the society and redirect resources to create a more ecologically and economically sustainable alternative, of which mass transit is the foundation.

2007-02-27T22:48:00.000-08:00

The Life Cycle

I was experiencing a timeless reality. A different dimension.

My friend was talking about the housing market supposedly cooling off and of the necessity for taking advantage of this down trend in the property market before prices start to go up again. An illusory dream for most young Southern Californians.

It occurred to me that we should live in sync with a deeper cycle than the artificial cycles created and sustained by societies. That perhaps this way of living is not just more beneficial on a societal level, but on a personal level as well, resulting in greater personal satisfaction and better human relationships.

I became obsessed watching the waves roll in. The gushing sound. I was in the presence of a cycle as profound as the ocean upon which the artificial cycles of humans are based. I merged with the organic and artificial.

It became a crystal clear realization that I should organize my life around the organic principle.

Today, we know that the life cycle is threatened. Yet, the periodic escalation in the price of gasoline reminds us how fragile the artificial cycles societies create are.

2007-02-06T13:24:00.000-08:00

The Revolution

This is my latest project. Livedigital provides users with tools to create their own channel and allows them to add videos from other sites such as YouTube, DailyMotion, and Google.

For my channel I have arranged the videos on the first page to narrate a story; the story of our times; the fall of the empire, the transformation of the society, the unraveling of anglo-saxon hegemony on our continent and subsequently the world.

Check it out and perhaps start your own. Clicking on the pic will open the channel in a new window.

2007-01-14T15:40:00.000-08:00

Bush to Bring Armageddon

I recently became intrigued with George Bush's religious beliefs because the course he has charted as President for dealing with terrorism and subsequently the Iraq war is so irrational that I imagine he must be motivated by some religious vision that justifies all economic costs and human suffering inflicted, so long as he is sure that in the end "God wins," good vanquishes evil, and he takes his place at the right hand of God.

Of course, I recognize the primary motivation for the invasion and occupation of Iraq is to control the region's oil resources. Religious motivation supplements economic motivation and has a life and a force of its own. This realization helps explain why he keeps pushing forward. The cost of the war has reached astronomical figures, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and escalating the conflict creates the possibility for a wider regional conflict with the potential to reach the levels of World War III and nuclear conflagration. In the face of these conditions, the economic incentive should lose some of its value.

Apparently not enough for the neocons. They are pursuing a wild plan to sustain an unsustainable empire and perpetuate their wealth and power. George Bush is waging "the decisive ideological struggle of our time." I do not believe he has the intelligence to calculate the value of the economic incentive.

He underestimates the scientific evidence for global warming, which if he took seriously would dissuade him from basing the future economy of the country on the gratuitous consumption of Middle Eastern oil. The U.S. could make considerable strides towards significant conservation by funding mass transit, increasing mileage standards, and developing alternative fuels.

He seems not to take into account the possible consequence of opposing parties infusing thousands of their own fighters into the conflict, and winning recruits. A wider regional conflict, particularly one which involves Iran would most certainly cause the price of oil to skyrocket. The U.S. which consumes 25% of the world's oil, would be undermining its own cause to sustain itself through control of oil resources. It would also hasten the decline of the dollar versus other currencies. It is also worthwhile to mention that our government is financed by debt.

Granted, he is a very stupid man, but his religious beliefs must be considered to help explain how he has led the country to the precipice of disaster, as well as what they can teach us regarding our society. Among his most ardent supporters are evangelicals who believe that Jesus is coming back and that current events are part of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy that will bring back Bush's favorite political philosopher.

According to an article by Rick Perlstein in the Village Voice, when George Bush proposed his Road Map peace plan, evangelicals flooded the White House with 50,000 postcards stating: "I'm in total disagreement with any form of Palestinian state." They also placed billboards in 23 cities with the quotation, "Unto they offspring will I give this land." As well as, "Pray that President Bush Honors God's Covenant with Israel." They've had meetings with White House staffers as well. George Monbiot also discusses the beliefs of these religious groups in the Gaurdian. John Aschcroft and Tom Delay are supposedly true believers.

Regarding what George Bush's personal religious beliefs may be, in another article by Perlstein, Bruce Lincoln of Chicago University describes the Act of the Apostles, which is the book Bush first studied when he became religious, as "focused on missionizing, evangelizing, spreading the faith. It's not end-of-the-world stuff. It's expansionist—it's religious imperialism, if you will. And I think that remains his primary orientation."

He also said regarding his primary orientation, "the U.S. is the new Israel as God's most favored nation, and those responsible for the state of America in the world also enjoy special favor."

George Bush is identified as a Methodist in numerous articles. The Methodist sources I found on the internet don't invest much in the prophecy of Armageddon. A methodist reverend stated this in a press release condemning the Israeli bombing of Lebanese civilians in the village of Qana: “I realize, that some Christians approach this region of the globe with theological preconceptions, but there are times when humanitarian concern must override contemporary ideology based on selective biblical interpretation. Peace is more important than visions of Armageddon."

The Methodist perspective is essentially non-fundamentalist, leaving room for interpretation, as illustrated by this source. "Many see this battle as being symbolic of God’s ultimate destruction of all that is evil on the earth, or even of the fall of Rome...If the beast is defeated here, and the beast represents Rome in Revelation, then Armageddon represents the fall of Rome. If the beast also represents every evil empire, then Armageddon represents God’s ultimate judgment against all evil empires and their inevitable destruction."

Very interestingly, numerous Methodist sources express a perspective which is opposite of George Bush's.

In a news article shortly after 9/11 a Methodist spokesperson when referring to terrorists said, "These folks are criminals. We American people know how to deal with criminals(mentioning courts and trials). That's not the same as saying we are
going to make war on Afghan peasants."

Ohio State Senator George V. Voinovich, a Roman Catholic, told the visiting Methodists, "I believe terrorism is a prelude to Armageddon."

These two statements reveal remarkable contrast in the manner in which we view terrorism and the logical results which the distinct views may produce. Terrorism is crime. The U.S. and all other countries in the world have police, courts, and trials. Yet we have not been viewing terrorism as crime, but as war.

Terrorism is not war. Viewing terrorism as the equivalent of war or as justification for war has resulted in the disastrous invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining the rule of law. All this supposedly over the crimes of private individuals who flew airplanes into buildings, which based on the footage I have observed, appear to have been subsequently detonated.

I seriously doubt that Senator Voinovich believes that the state of Israel needs to occupy the lands attributed to the biblical Israel in order for Jesus to return, as some Evangelicals who fiercely support Bush do. I imagine that like most people he has a vague and distant notion of it.

Yet it is obvious from his statement that even vague and distant belief in the prophecy of a God who ends the world as we know it, saves some people, and wages a final, climactic battle in which He vanquishes evil(including the rest of the population), can influence perception. It provokes fear, and fear subsequently shapes the policy. Fear can lead one to make irrational decisions and to become paranoid. Apart from fear, belief imbues self-righteousnous, which we all know can be taken too far. Voinovich told the group of visiting Methodists that he thought military action was necessary. It is not necessarily Bush's personal beliefs or the degree to which he believes them that is driving us towards Armageddon, but the collective religious beliefs of our society.

Undoubtedly, the Armageddon camp has influenced the outcome of elections in the U.S. George Bush receives their unwavering support and is a willing actor in the drama to which they are a rapturous audience because he has internalized the mythic structure, premise, and metaphors of the prophecy, as have many of the rest of us, without necessarily, literally believing it. For instance, the concept that good will vanquish evil. Is it not true, that God lives in all of us, and so does the devil?

Given Israel's history of aggression and expansionist policies which complement and fulfill the Bush supporter's vision, I wonder how much religious beliefs influence Israel's policies. Are they not awaiting a messiah as well? In Iraq, the largest threat to American forces has been identified as Moqtada Al-Sadr and his Mahdi army. The word Mahdi is a messianic character expected to return, very similar to Jesus, although the word doesn't translate literally to messiah according to this wikipedia entry.

Once again citing Bush's denominational brethren, "The Book of Revelation...was written as a 'document of great hope' for the early church under Roman occupation, not as a glib prediction sheet to be decoded by 21st-century readers."

Interpreting Armageddon as a parable of the fall of an empire perhaps provides us with the greatest insight. Not necessarily the end of the world, but the end of an order, with potentially catastrophic consequences. We face serious economic challenges, what people refer to as "gas pain" is illustrative of these. We also face ecological catastrophe not too far off in the future.

The immediate question which results from a withdrawal or the ultimate failure of American policy in the Middle East is, how do we manage to sustain consuming 25% of the world's oil without subjugating other countries through violence? It's not possible. We must transform the society.

The empire is crumbling. May the empire crumble and out of the rubble arise a new idol, a new dream, and a new people.

Revelations 18:2: "And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird."

2007-01-07T22:11:00.000-08:00

The Quote of 2006 with Implications for 2007

"For the United States, for U.S. planners, a sovereign Iraq would be a complete nightmare. Simply consider its likely policies. A sovereign, moderately democratic Iraq has a Shiite majority. The first thing they would do in fact are doing it already, is to improve relations with Shiite Iran next door, the majority of the clerics come from there, one of the major militias in the south was trained there, they may not love Iran, but they'd much prefer friendly relations than hostility with their major neighbor...I'm sure Washington planners are having nightmares about it. What might develop is a loose Shiite alliance, Southern Iraq, Iran, neighboring areas of Saudi Arabia, and that happens to be where most of Saudi oil is, so that alliance would control most of the world's energy, independent of Washington. An unspeakable nightmare which could get a lot worse. Europe is intimidated when the U.S. shakes its fist, and backs off. That's why China is considered a great threat. It's not a military threat, but it won't be intimidated. It's been around for 3,000 years, they've no particular interest in what the barbarians are saying, so they continue to invest, including in Saudi Arabia, the prize, send military aid, every reason why they would like to attract this alliance into their orbit, there are already major organizations, Shanghai Cooperation Council includes Southcentral Asian states, an Asian energy security grid based primarily in China, including Russia and neighboring states, it'll probably include India before too long. If the Middle East oil resources move into it, the United States becomes a second class power. Controlling the world's energy resources has been a prime policy objective for 60 years just as it was for Britain before us, and for obvious reasons. Well that's not trivial. Any withdrawal proposal that doesn't take this into consideration is just not serious."

Noam Chomsky, "Crises in the Middle East," September 21st, 2006.

The full speech was broadcast as recently as December 26th, 2006 on KPFK. The podcast can be downloaded from the audio archives.

2006-12-23T15:28:00.000-08:00

Failure

As some of you may know, when one searches for the word failure in either google or yahoo, the first result is the official whitehouse biography for President George W. Bush. Though this may be humorous, what is somewhat more astonishing and sobering is the general realization which Americans are undergoing that the war in Iraq is a failure. Even conservative elements are now acknowledging this with astounding declarations.

Henry Kissinger told the BBC that the main goal of the U.S. is not possible to achieve: "If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible."(BBC Sunday AM)

Vietnam War veteran and Presidential candidate John McCain was quoted in a widely distributed newstory as saying that soldiers who are currently in Iraq, are "fighting and dying for a failed policy." That's getting pretty close to saying that they are dying in vain. McCain favors increasing the number of troops in an effort to stabilize the country.

The Iraq Study Group's report has some astonishingly candid declarations as well: "Sixty-one percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces."

"Our government still does not understand very well either the insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias."

Regarding the coordination of economic and reconstruction assistance by senior management in Washington it said, "Focus, priority setting, and skillful implementation are in short supply."

According to the report, the Iraq War has cost $400 billion and "estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. "

"The executive branch presents budget requests in a confusing manner, making it difficult for both the general public and members of Congress to understand the request or to differentiate it from counterterrorism operations around the world or operations in Afghanistan."

"Our embassy of 1,000 has 33 Arabic speakers, just six of whom are at the level of fluency."

The realization is so profound and the moment so transcendent, that the President has delayed announcing how he plans to redefine the course until January. Yet what has filtered through is that George Bush is supposedly seeking to temporarily increase the number of troops in Iraq in an attempt to stabilize the country. According to an L.A. Times article published today, the top ranking officer in Iraq, General George W. Casey Jr., who has long resisted increasing troops in Iraq, has now changed his mind and will recommend an increase.

The question this immediately provokes is, "If the number of troops is increased, won't U.S. forces become a bigger target?" This would be the case if indeed funding, insurgents, and terrorists are crossing the border from Syria into Iraq and the U.S. refuses to engage Syria and Iran in dialogue as recommended by the report. More U.S. troops may attract more fighters, thus escalating the conflict.

At this point it is worthwhile to once again quote from the Iraq Study Group report. One general was quoted as saying that, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security."

It is predictable that a short term increase will turn into a long term increase. This is consistent with the Administration's world vision and its overall goal of building a larger military. An Army official was quoted in the L.A. Times as saying, "The genesis is his long-held belief the global war on terror is going to be a long one and we're going to need a military capable of sustaining our effort to keep the country safe."

Running contrary to the specter of a larger regional conflict and runaway military spending which the people who guide George Bush appear intent on creating, is the idea that the United Nations should take over in Iraq as expressed by Yasar Qatarneh, director of the Regional Center on Conflict Prevention, in Amman, Jordan in an interview with Spiegel Online.

"I believe that Iraq is a case for the United Nations, with full and unrestricted backing from the European Union. The UN has to take over the country."

"A multilateral force of peacekeepers not associated with the US invasion and its bloody aftermath would have to take the place of American forces. Meanwhile, in return for a place at the table the insurgents would have to agree to reject al-Qaida forces in the country. Once a UN-sponsored peace and reconciliation process is in place, the Iraqi insurgents' goals, focused as they are on control of the Iraqi State, would be easily distinguishable from those of al-Qaida, which is waging a permanent war against the West, with Iraq as a sideshow. "

Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich who ran for President in 2004 and has announced that he will run in 2008 as well, expressed a similar view recently at a hearing in which the results of an investigation by the British medical journal Lancet revealed that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died in the Iraq war.

"Now, I have no doubt that the best course of action for our nation is to extract ourselves from Iraq as fast as possible, while enabling the United Nations to establish a peacekeeping force. Such action would remove our troops from harm's way, remove the largest impetus for the violence and begin the healing process, which will take decades to complete."

"Our president does not seem to understand the necessity to get out of Iraq. Thus, it is imperative that Congress do the one thing the Constitution of the United States provides for: Congress must cut off future war funds and demand that the President use the current funds in the pipeline from the October 1st $70 billion appropriation to bring the troops home. "

In related news, the price of oil is rising and the dollar keeps losing its value against the Euro and other currencies.

2006-11-09T05:33:00.000-08:00

Defining the Dream

I was very enthused by Phil Angelides as a candidate. He had a plan to reduce California's oil consumption by 25% in ten years. That's the most ambitious plan by a politician who actually gets more than 3% of the vote I've ever seen. I also regard him as the best candidate for governor of California I have ever seen, but the star power of Arnold Schwarzenegger eclipsed him.

I admit, however, that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a much better candidate in 2006, than in 2003 or 2005. I can imagine that a certain percentage of the population supports Arnold Schwarzenegger because it fears that the liberals will run away with the state. The liberals are not running away with the state, but they did assert themselves on Tuesday. Only Steve Poizner joins Arnold as a Republican to get elected to state wide office since the Republicans championed and passed a racist and illegal proposition in 1994.

I interpret the elections as an endorsement of the status quo. The Governor is re-elected, and California expresses its democratic nature. What keeps liberals from running away with the state is the inability to challenge the anti-tax philosophy of the Republicans, which has trickled down to many parts of the population. The result is that on election day the state of California acquired around $42.5 billion dollars of debt, and now has debt totaling about $93.5 billion dollars.

Californians are reluctant to impose small taxes on corporations. In fact, more Californians are willing to impose a tax on cigarette smokers than to impose a tax on oil companies and corporations. Publicly financed elections did not capture the imagination of the population. Universal healthcare in the state will have to wait. Dramatic improvements in mass transit are very unlikely to occur. Proposition 1B which raises $19 billion dollars for transportation purposes allots a modest $4 billion for mass transit. We plan to be driving, and consuming gasoline.

It could be that Californians are expecting leadership to come from the federal government in order to improve the problems that plague our society. A Californian, Nancy Pelosi, is the new speaker of the house. Perhaps if George Bush signs a few bills written and passed by the now democratically controlled Congress, Californians will come to like him better.

Voter turnout in California was 55%. I view the rest of the eligible voters as a vast market for politicians and ideas. Voter turnout has steadily declined from a high of 79.5% in 1958, with exceptions; in 2003 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was first elected it spiked to 61%.

2006-11-07T03:20:00.000-08:00

El Pueblo de Los Angeles Demands 1,000 More Buses

By international standards, Los Angeles has a horrendous mass transit system. It also has the worst traffic and the worst air in the country. Since 1992, the Bus Riders Union has taken the battle to City Hall and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to improve mass transit. This rally took place on Oct. 17th, 2006 in front of City Hall.

Los Angeles County is the 17th largest economy in the world and has a gross product of $373.2 billion, according to the MTA's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget, whose current fiscal year budget is a little more than $3 billion. According to current Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa during his 2005 campaign, traffic costs the Los Angeles economy $11 billion dollars per year. His dream of building a subway to the sea would cost upwards of $5 billion.

However, this dream has been proposed and would have been completed by now, but has lingered for more than two decades. According to Eric Berkowitz's story on the possible extension of the red line to the sea which appeared in The LA Weekly, racist Westside residents who did not want people of color coming to and through their neighborhoods were the main cause for it never having been constructed.

The BRU sued the MTA in 1994 for violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and won a historic consent decree. The suit charged the MTA with "establishing a discriminatory, separate, and unequal transportaion system while using federal funds." The BRU opposes subway and rail expansion until all the consent decree obligations are met. However, the consent decree recently expired, and has not been extended.

At the crux of the disagreement is perception regarding whether Los Angeles has adequate bus service. The MTA has never fully complied with the requirements of the consent decree, and believes that there are more buses than there are people to ride them. In fact, MTA CEO Roger Snoble even blamed buses for Los Angeles' traffic problems in Berkowitz's story. "We're not taking cars off the street. In fact, we're adding buses to the streets, which is causing more traffic jams." Berkowitz agreed with Snoble's general perception: "The result is a big outlay of money for a lot of empty buses."

In April 2005 Roger Snoble appeared in Mass Transit magazine(I'm holding a copy of the issue in my hand, but curiously, this particular issue is not listed on their website) and gave this magazine the same impression. The article description in the table of contents read: "Then there's the decade-long decree that demands more buses than there are people to ride them, draining the agency's coffers and crippling its progress." He made the following comment to the magazine regarding the BRU: "They got the idea that they should sue us because it was a 'civil rights matter,' that the money wasn't going toward minority populations which relied on the bus. The whole concept of it is very racist."

Today, both bus service and the subway system in Los Angeles are horrendously inadequate, and if you happen to be a certain color in a certain neighborhood while waiting for the bus, you may even get harassed by the Los Angeles Police Department, it happened to a friend of mine.

Once I was riding the bus around 8pm when the bus driver stalled and two cops got on the bus and busted a couple of teenagers for etching graffiti on the windows. The kids didn't just get busted, the bus got taken out of service. The driver actually thought he was doing a good thing. The next five buses were out of service. The next available bus didn't come for half an hour. I was late to were I was going.

In a society as wealthy as ours(California is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world) that refuses to adequately invest in basic needs such as transportation, healthcare, and education, if I have to choose due to limited government revenue between police and mass transit, I'm going to choose mass transit. Thus I support and completely agree with the BRU's demands for 1000 more buses and 1000 less police.

I believe that it is necessary to transform the transportation system of the state of California, and to help relieve the problem of limited government revenue which is pitting people against each other, we should increase the gasoline tax and apply it towards mass transit. It is resistance to taxation, which is preventing progress, not just on the transportation front, but across the society as a whole.

2006-10-30T14:25:00.000-08:00

Schwarzenegger: BMW to Bring in Hydrogen Car in 2007

This is a clip from the only debate which was held between Phil Angelides and Arnold Schwarzenegger in which the governor was asked, "As gasoline prices rise, what policies do you think are most important to address California's transportation problems and how would you pay for them?" . Phil Angelides accepted eight invitations to debate. Arnold Schwarzenegger accepted one. This clip makes it obvious why.

Schwarzenegger's response is intellectually derisible. "We must do exactly what we've been doing for the last three years which is to come up with alternative fuel." In the radically car dependent metropolis of Los Angeles, out of the thousands of fueling stations which exist, I don't know of a single one which dispenses an alternative fuel. Nor can this vast lack of supply be expected to change soon.

He then claims that BMW, Honda, and Toyota will have hydrogen cars in California in 2007. It is not clear if he is claiming that these cars will be commercially available or exist as prototypes to test the technology. "Honda and Toyota is working on an engine for 2007, they will have cars in here."

Such manufacturers are already leasing prototypes in the U.S., cars which cost $1 million to make, and California is in the process of building 100 hydrogen fueling stations by 2010. However, these efforts will help very little as a solution to the transportation needs of 38 million Californians over the next several years.

Schwarzenegger states that it is "inexcusable that people have to pay up to $4.00 a gallon." If indeed we are trapped in a relentless cycle of rollercoaster, yet inevitably escalating gas prices as the data suggest, Californians will be paying $4.00 per gallon of gasoline within the next two years. According to a survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California in the middle of July when gas hovered around $3.25 per gallon, 67% of Californians claimed that gas prices had caused them or their household financial hardship.

What can we say to the millions of Californians who will see themselves economically challenged by the inevitable surge in gasoline prices? Buy a hydrogen car!

Angelides was far more comprehensive and reality based in his response. He called for clean fuels, like Arnold, but also discussed a smart growth plan that would enable Californians to commute less, with jobs near housing, walkable, transit oriented neighborhoods, and a strong land use policy.

The follow up question posed by the moderator concerning high speed rail was completely ignored by Schwarzenegger, but his final comment is revealing of the transformation which he has recently undergone from right wing activist to a nearly middle of the political spectrum politician who is leadable. Given more time to learn as a governor and to grow as a person he may eventually become as good or as mediocre(your choice) as Gray Davis once was.

"There's a difference between Arnold Schwarzenegger and me," claims Angelides. Yes, one candidate is way smarter than the other one.

Proposition 1B which Schwarzenegger discussed, provides a modest sum of $4 billion for mass transit, with an additional $1 billion going to improve security and disaster preparedness of mass transit systems.

2006-10-12T16:23:00.000-07:00

The BP Statistical Review of World Energy: Levels of Perception Beyond CNN

For 55 years British Petroleum has been publishing a "detailed analysis of the world's energy market." It is a highly reliable source which can be used to verify general statements people make such as, the U.S. population consumes 25% of the world's oil. Beyond this, the reader will gain insight and depth of perception which will allow him to formulate his own conclusions. The Wall Street Journal has referred to the report as "an industry bible."

According to Lord Browne of Madingley, Group Chief Executive, "China accounted for more than half of global energy consumption growth." Yet, their consumption only grew 2.9%, which is a slowdown from the previous year when it jumped 15.8%. Despite these facts and that China contains more than 20% of the world's population, it's population still only consumes 8.5% of the world's oil. India, which contains another fifth of the world's population only consumes 3.0% of the world's oil.

Here is a picture that illustrates world oil consumption per capita.

This picture illustrates the distribution of the world's proved oil reserves. Proved reserves are defined as reserves that have a 90% or greater probability of being retrieved.

It is somewhat misleading to state that the U.S. is dependant on the Middle East for oil. It depends upon the resources of the entire world to sustain itself. In 2005 it imported more oil from both South America and Africa than it did from the Middle East. Canadian and Mexican imports combined far surpass Middle Eastern imports. However, as suggested by the graphic, the U.S. would eventually need to consume a greater share of Middle Eastern oil in order to sustain this voracious pattern of consumption, which is illustrated in the following picture.

I have seen these trade movements illustrated in previous editions with much bolder arrows which dramatically illustrated that the United States is indeed an empire. These arrows merely suggest it. Of course, the U.S. is not an empire in the traditional sense, but it would be a denial of reality not to acknowledge that the direction of these little arrows is influenced by the American military and the undermining of the self-determination of people of numerous countries. The U.S. military maintains bases in dozens of countries. The U.S. is holding terrorism suspects in Cuba of all places.

Of much media attention lately is the Venezuelan/U.S. beef. The statistics from this report bring this controversy into sharp focus. Venezuela, with 79.7 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, has more proved oil reserves than the United States, Canada, and Mexico combined. The next country in South America with the most proved oil reserves is Brazil with 11.8 billion barrels.

In a recent interview with Amy Goodman, Chavez declared, "The U.S. people must come to understand, how this country with only 5 percent of the world population, consumes 25 percent of the oil and the energy of the world. I mean that type of consumption is totally unbearable and this planet cannot stand it any more."

"Yesterday morning, we were coming from the airport for instance, it was the traffic jam time, it was very packed in the highway coming from the airport here. I talked to the people in my car, looked outside, looked at the cars surrounding us. Out of a hundred cars, ninety-nine were occupied by a single person, the driver only. Cars occupying the highways, and burning fuel, how many gallons of fuel were burned yesterday morning, polluting the environment? That's the extreme of individualism."

May the real knowledge spread so that more people may laugh at these whiney, complaining, soft, chumps who project ignorance either because they're ignorant, or it is their job to mislead the population. "You are a very wise man Tony."

2006-09-11T18:19:00.000-07:00

The Farce That Is the War on Terrrorism

On this September 11th, I am taking a break from killing terrorists and spreading democracy throughout the world like all good patriotic Americans have been doing for the last five years, in order to express a point of view that can be logically arrived at, but unutterable in the decaying, intellectually closed traditional media outlets of the United States.

The terrorism that befell the United States five years ago was a criminal act, not an act of war. The terrorists could not claim to legitimately represent the population of any country on the planet. If we deal with such acts as crimes, the individuals that perpetrate them remain isolated from the general population, stigmatized, stripped of legitimacy.

Our response as a country was to hold the entire population of Afghanistan responsible, and subsequently Iraq, for the crimes of a few individuals, horrendous as they may have been. We reinforced and escalated the cycle of violence.

War is two or more societies engaged in the complete destruction of each other, and under such a scenario, the terrorists morph into metaphors for all that is evil, then vanish. Where are the terrorists that struck us on September 11th? I presume that some of them are dead. We are left fighting demons, ghosts. Whatever terrorists remain can now blend into the population easier, and even transcend their previous status as heinous criminals, to become resistance fighters. We have become the criminals. The war in Iraq has left 100, 000 Iraqis dead. Our armed forces have committed outrageous, cruel, pornographic acts of torture on people that have left the world astonished and outraged.

The war on terrorism has precipitated massive military spending and today U.S. armed forces find themselves indefinitely stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American death toll approaching 3,000, with thousands more maimed, yet I ask Americans to consider whether military solutions even apply to this problem.

2006-09-05T23:55:00.000-07:00

Lo Que la Calle Esperaba

This is one of my favorite artists. I first heard him on a bootleg compilation CD dissin' Tego Calderon. Since then I have downloaded numerous songs of his and followed his career on the internet. Among his claims is that the industry is blocking latino hip-hop from getting on the radio.

In Los Angeles, there is a radio station called Latino 96.3 that plays reggaeton and some hip-hop. However, the problem with this radio station is the same as with most commercial radio stations. They play the same 40 songs over and over again. So very little of what is played on Los Angeles' airwaves is Latino hip-hop.

Considering the millions of Spanish speaking youth that reside in the metropolis, one would imagine that the market would support far more. Will Latino 96.3 or another station play Temperamento?

For now Temperamento's album doesn't have distribution. His fans will have to wait. He has promised a classic. The gatekeepers of the industry do not recognize the market that cultural evolution, or as I prefer to think, cultural revolution is creating. On the other hand, the digital revolution gives independent artists new opportunities and risks. I hope that he finds the solution to put the music of Cadena Perpetua in the ear drums of his fans, and increase the irrelevance of corporate behemoths, unless of course, they embrace the reality from which we come and is the source of our cultural expressions.

"Hardcore hip-hop en espanol que para siempre viva."-Wille Sante

2006-06-15T21:46:00.000-07:00

PHIL ANGELIDES FOR GOVERNOR

In California, we have achieved a critical mass which enables us to make fundamental changes to the socio-economic structure of our state, transforming its nature from sado-masochistic to humanistic. Transforming the transportation system would undermine the necessity for invading and occupying foreign countries.

The society which most of us claim to want, with affordable housing, high quality education for everyone not just privileged populations, universal health insurance, and an ecologically and economically sustainable transportation model, all of which would create a more vibrant culture, is possible to create if we enact the appropriate policies.

Key to such a societal shift is the concept of progressive taxation. A concept which is diametrically opposed to the political philosophy of Arnold Schwarzenegger and most Republicans. Fortunately, they have been swept out of state office since 1994, with Arnold being the exception, and Democrats have established firm majorities in both legislative chambers and are near super majorities. Central to this phenomenon is the growing political leverage of Latinos. As a person of Mexican ancestry, I not only believe that change is possible, but that it is our destiny to transform the society; a society whose economy has been sustained by the labor of our fathers, grandfathers, and in some cases great grandfathers, for decades.

The economic importance of California to the U.S. and to the world cannot be overlooked. It is the 5th largest economy on the planet. It’s central valley is the most fertile valley in the world, provides over a quarter of the nation’s food supply, and feeds millions of people around the world. The majority of the cargo that enters the U.S. enters through Southern California. California is also home to the film industry and to a robust technology industry. It is home to some of the most prestigious public universities in the world. It is a donor state to the rest of the country.

We can support policies that allow us to have more leisure so we can enjoy the beaches, mountains, forests, mild weather, and cultural mosaic of California; or support policies that make slaves of us, compelling us to endure traffic; to overwork, undersleep, and have very little time because the price of housing is skyrocketing. We can turn all of California into a parking lot, or we can build world class mass transit. We can have a mediocre educational system, or produce one of the most educated societies on the planet.

California is a dream on the edge of the North American continent. It is our dream.