Statement to the US Forest Service re. Rosemont Mine, 12/8/2011

I made the following statement at a hearing sponsored by the US Forest Service in connection with the proposed Rosemont copper mine.

My name is Nick Kildahl. I live in Rio Rico, Arizona at 488 Ash Lane.  I oppose the Rosemont Mine.

Projections of the Rosemont Corporation state that the mine is expected to produce 221 million pounds of copper annually. This translates to 110500 short tons. Total US production in 2010 was 1,223,000 short tons. Thus Rosemont expects to increase annual U.S. production by 9%; i.e., this will be a huge mine! In the process they expect to provide about 400 jobs and will undoubtedly make large profits. They will be subsidized by the people of Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, who will, as always, pay the externalized costs of the mining operation. These include:

            1) Decreased air quality due to exhaust emissions and dust
            2) Decreased water supply due to pumping from the aquifer at the rate of 15000 acre-feet per year. This water will be ruined for human consumption/use.
            3) Increased risk of health problems, particularly from valley fever, due to airborne dust
            4) Decreased tourism; consequently decreased business activity; consequently loss of jobs. How many jobs will be lost so that Rosemont (or the company to which they sell the mine) can provide 400 jobs and, incidentally, make money for its stockholders?
            5) A degraded scenic area; the Santa Rita Mountains are the most beautiful mountain range in southern Arizona. Their only blemish is the white scar left from previous mining activities, clearly visible along much of the length of I-19.
            6) Loss of a beautiful natural habitat for many creatures and plants (including 33000 trees). In its place we will be given a wasteland, polluted with mine tailings and gangue resulting from the mining operation.
            7) Light pollution and negative impact on the research being done at the Whipple Observatory.
            8) Increased truck traffic and damage to roads. How many trucks will be leaving the mine each day? The site supposedly holds 0.45% copper in the form of sulfide ore. To extract one pound of copper will require the digging of 222 pounds of ore-containing rock. So the yearly production of    221,000,000 pounds of copper will require the hauling of almost 50 billion pounds of rock within the mining site. How many truckloads is that?

            9) Increased CO2 emissions, accelerating climate change. The evidence for climate change is obvious now to anyone who is paying attention. Several factors contribute to this:

                        a) Loss of 33000 trees, which absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
                        b) Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel powered mining equipment
                        c) Emissions of CO2 from the transport trucks. These probably get no more than 2-3 mpg.
                        d) Emissions from the trains that will carry the ore from Tucson to the Mexican coast.
                        e) Emissions from the ore ships that will carry the ore from Mexico to China for processing (talk about globalization!)
                        
Here are some interesting facts. The world now consumes petroleum at the rate of 1000 barrels per second. This is 42000 gallons per second. Every gallon of gasoline or diesel burned creates approximately 20 pounds of CO2, so assuming all of the crude petroleum is burned as gasoline (not true, but the essence of the argument is OK), that means about 840,000 pounds of CO2 are produced per second worldwide, half of which ends up in the atmosphere, where it traps heat and warms the planet.

The evidence of climate change is all around us. The Forest Service must certainly be well aware of this, because it has watched the effects of drought, forest fires, and the pine bark beetle that are direct consequences of climate change, itself the direct consequence of our fossil-fuel powered corporate activities. That the Forest Service is even considering allowing the Rosemont Mine operation to proceed shows a woeful lack of awareness of what is happening around us.  Is this ignorance willful?

The US Forest Service has a chance to take one small step in the right direction here by saying NO to Rosemont Copper. We’ve already gone too far down the path of ruthless exploitation of the earth. It’s time to stop. Your justification for saying no to the project is the Organic Act of 1897, which mandates you to protect the water, plants, and wildlife in lands of the United States. Please honor this mandate.

I for one am tired of having my interests and those of my fellow citizens subordinated to the interests of corporations that destroy the environment in the name of jobs and profits. I strongly oppose the Rosemont Mine.

Nick Kildahl, concerned citizen and resident.

How Science Works

            The previous post ended with a question: Why do we not hear more about climate change from our political and economic leaders and in the media? There are many reasons. The fossil fuel industry has purchased the silence of our politicians; the silence of the news media (have you seen coal, oil, and natural gas commercials on the morning news shows?); and the scientific testimony of a few highly unethical “scientists”. The most notorious of these paid “denialists” is Richard Lindzen, a faculty member at MIT. He is paid by the oil industry to discredit climate science, just as he was paid 50 years ago by the tobacco companies to discredit science supporting the link between smoking and cancer. Richard Lindzen is a despicable human being, but he and others have been effective in confusing the American public and the political establishment about the reality of climate change. Among their arguments is the claim that there is a conspiracy of climate scientists to produce data supporting climate change in order to retain their research funding. This argument is advanced in Crichton’s book, “State of Fear”. To one who knows how science works, this is a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
            So how does science work? The training of a scientist begins in high school, continues in undergraduate university, and usually culminates in a Ph.D in a highly specialized area (for example, I loved chemistry in high school, majored in Chemistry at Purdue, earned a Ph.D in Inorganic Chemistry at the University of Illinois). During this time, the blossoming scientist is trained in data acquisition and interpretation, detailed record keeping, and the long tradition (since Kepler, Galileo et al) of scrupulous adherence to moral and ethical standards. I’ll bet that not more than 1 incipient scientist in a thousand has even a fleeting thought about “cheating” (that is, manufacturing data—numbers—to support some preconceived theory). The reason for this is that science is a peer-reviewed activity; an activity in which error is relentlessly sought and expunged; an activity that is self-correcting. This works as follows. A research scientist at a university or a government agency (such as James Hansen at NASA) collects data in an investigation of some aspect of his/her area of expertise. This might be, for example, temperature data from a number of thermometer stations worldwide. Data might be collected for a year, two years, longer. S/he might then combine this data with that of other scientists taken over a number of years prior, and observe, say, that the average temperature seems to be increasing year-to-year. The scientist writes up his experiments and analysis in a highly-referenced paper, which is submitted to a professional scientific journal (such as Science, or Nature). A journal editor makes copies of the paper and sends them to other scientists who are also expert in the field of the author (i.e., peers of the author). These peers study the paper, looking for error, and delight in finding it. They write their reviews and return them, and the editor relays them to the original author (with reviewer’s names excised). Because the reviews are anonymous, they are often quite rude and harsh. The author finds out in often unpleasant fashion that his paper is un-publishable unless he addresses the reviewers’ criticisms. Most authors do this, which may mean more experiments, more data, more analysis, amended conclusions, and so on. Eventually, a quality paper will pass this initial peer review and be published (a poor paper will not). Then the real fun begins. The paper is now “public”, and subject to the peer review of every scientist who is interested in the subject matter. They, too, absolutely delight in finding error. Some will want to use the data in the paper as a starting point for further research. They will certainly begin by attempting to reproduce some of the data in the paper to be satisfied that the original guy did his experiments carefully. Should they not be able to reproduce the first guy’s numbers, watch out! This will become widely known and thus investigated by others, and if the data or conclusions are faulty, they will be dismissed out-of-hand. This is the self-correction of peer review. Please realize that the first scientist did not intentionally publish faulty data. In all likelihood, the data were collected by graduate students who may have made errors in designing and carrying out their experiments. These were not purposeful either; they are simply mistakes. But the mistakes will be found.
            The idea of a conspiracy among scientists to manufacture data supporting climate change is silly because, first, a substantial number of scientists would have to agree to abandon the morality/ethicality that has been built into them for years; would have to somehow arrange that no scientist outside their conspiring group be asked to review a paper (also requiring the editors to be involved); and would have to manufacture mutually consistent data, so that some targeted climate change issue (say global warming) would be supported. Surely there would have to be a few email communications among them in which it was decided who would produce which numbers, and what the numbers should be. Oh, well, it’s ridiculous!

Externalities

The U.S. economy is like a big machine into which is fed land, labor, and capital, and out of which  come  useful goods and services. Of course, something else must be fed to the economy: energy. The energy source of choice in the United States is and has for a long time been the “fossil fuels” (coal, oil and natural gas). Fossil fuels provide an astounding amount of energy. A small volume of gasoline powers your car up a mile-long 10% grade in about 1 minute.  Imagine yourself (and others) pushing the car up, and you begin to appreciate the magic of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have enabled us to build a highly sophisticated, advanced world civilization. Unfortunately, in addition to the products that we value, our economy generates other “things” that are not so nice: mining waste; manufacturing waste; distribution waste; and product use waste (think of the plastic packaging that you discard when you buy a new “toy”); and waste from fossil fuel burning. These wastes are given a name by those economic insiders. They are called externalities because they are considered to be external to the economy, and therefore don’t count! The primary (but not only) waste product of the burning of fossil fuels is carbon dioxide, CO2, a colorless, odorless, tasteless, unobservable gas. Burning 1 pound of coal produces 3.4 pounds of CO2; 1 pound of gasoline, 3.64 pounds of CO2; and 1 pound of natural gas, 2.75 pounds of CO2. CO2 is considered an externality; it does not count in the realm of economic thinking.

Of the CO2 produced from fossil fuels, about half goes into the atmosphere, and the other half is absorbed by oceans and plants. So much fossil fuel has been burned in the last 250 years that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm), or 0.028%, to almost 400 parts per million, or 0.04%. It has been feared since the 1980s that this increase will cause warming of the earth due to the trapping of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2. This fear has become reality. Since 1980 the average temperature at the surface of the earth has risen by 0.6 degrees C (1.1 degrees F). This has resulted in an escalation in the number and severity of weather events in the US and around the world. Our weather will become increasingly severe over time. Eventually large-scale ice melting and sea level rise will occur. Most human beings in the world live near ocean coasts, so ultimately the burning of fossil fuels will drive many people from their homes. How’s that for an externality?

There is only one way to stop climate change: STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS! Period. Is it likely that this will happen? What actions are necessary for it to happen? Clearly to sustain our standard of living we won’t stop using fossil fuels until we have a replacement energy source. There are only a few options: wind, solar, and nuclear power. SOPA believes that nuclear power is the best option. Each option has pros and cons, but they have in common that they produce ZERO CO2 during energy production. All generate electricity, which can power homes, businesses, and transportation vehicles. Were we to start now, how long will it take to build sufficient nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuel power? An optimistic projection is that it will take until 2040. If we were to start now.

With this staring us in the face, we might expect a sense of urgency within the halls of power. Is there concern in Washington, DC, or at the state level, about the impending impact of climate change? Are legislators writing bills advocating “fighting” climate change by phasing out fossil fuels? Has the President produced climate change initiatives for consideration by Congress? Do the Republican presidential candidates discuss climate change during their debates? I think we will all agree that the answer to all question is NO. The question is, WHY?

The Self-Esteem Syndrome

I've been thinking lately, in light of our political economic situation in the US, about a phenomenon that somehow insinuated itself into the American culture when I was a relatively young person, say 35 or so. The self-esteem of our children became, gradually probably, of paramount importance in all contexts--home, school, social, religious, athletic, whatever. It became increasingly impermissible to do anything that anyone could conceive might have a negative impact on our children's self-esteem. Do you remember this phenomenon? Is it still in play among young families?

At any rate, we taught our children that sporting events were not competitions, but instead were opportunities to try hard and to do our best, however feeble that might be; to not worry about winning/losing, but to enjoy the activity. At the end, no matter who won or lost, everybody was a winner. Everybody got a ribbon, or a trophy (of cheap gilded plastic), a pat on the back, an attaboy. And so we lost our ability, and failed to teach our children the ability, to distinguish quality from a lack thereof. Everything was equally valuable and laudable. I believe this phenomenon had a lot to do with the "dumbing-down" of our educational system. After all, we wouldn't want a student's academic failure to affect his/her self-esteem. So let's find a way to reward, and pass, everyone, whether or not they can read or add 3 and 2. We must not discriminate, even on the basis of competence. To do so verges on child abuse. Recently on the news there was the story of a teacher who duct-taped the mouth of a teenager who simply would not shut up in class. Newscaster/psychologists were outraged, demanding that the teacher be fired, that psychological help be immediately provided for the teenager lest her self-esteem plummet to the depths. When I was in first grade, my inappropriate conversation led to a scotch-taped mouth, coupled with sitting in the corner. I was embarrassed to even mention it to my parents, because it would reveal that I had done wrong in school. Was my sense of self-worth ruined forever? Well, not by that! There was no psychological help for poor little Nicky.

Is anything more at odds with the reality of the adult world than this phenomenon? A coddled, self-esteem stimulated child graduates grade-school in cap and gown, then from a dumbed-down high school with honors, then from a dumbed-down university magna cum laude, to enter the real world of cutthroat, slash & burn competition. What a disservice has been done to this young person. Do such young persons rapidly shuck off the illusions of youth and learn the game, or do they continue to believe that even their failures (not to be called that of course, because they tried hard after all) are worthy of promotion? Do they forever resent their parents, who failed to teach them the first thing about how the world really works? I think here of some of our politicians--yes, many young and of appropriate age--who achieve positions of prominence, rapidly destroy the progress made by their predecessors, then claim that what they have done qualifies them to run for president of the US (here think Tim Polenty; Michelle Bachman; George W Bush although a bit old; Sarah Palin (who quit her governor's post in Alaska)). Think of Christine whats-her-name in one of the Carolinas (the one whom Bill Maher so despised), Sharon Angle in Nevada. Think of our Arizona legislators now, and some of the bills they create. The self-esteem of these people is Everest high; their accomplishments are sand dunes, and in some cases sink holes.

Is the proliferation of i-devices (and i-marches) somehow tied to this phenomenon? I-phone, I-pad, I-pod, I-life. Is the increasing self-centeredness of American youth a consequence? Is this a world-wide phenomenon, or a creation of America? Is this related to the inexorable decline of the academic performance of American students (we're well down on the world list now)?

The Value of Zero

In our system of Arabic numerals we encounter the zero, 0, which we are taught signifies a value of nothing. Zero is null, void. We would balk at a salary of 0 dollars for a job well done. We would dislike a return of 0 dollars on a stock investment (but less than we would dislike a loss!). We would despair at economic growth of 0%.

A new ad for the Nissan Leaf, an all-electric car, suggests a new interpretation of zero: that indeed it can have inestimable value.

Consider some further zeroes; what is (or would be) their value?

0 gallons of gas per mile driven.
0 dependence on foreign oil.
0 ppm of CO2 produced by our power plants.
0 extinctions of species due to human activity.
0 starving human beings
0 mountains de-topped for coal mining.
0 deaths from black lung disease.
0 politicians clammoring to cut taxes on the rich.
0 politicians clammoring to grow the economy.
0 deaths in the United States from gun violence.
0 deaths in the United States from drug overdose.
0 oil spills.
0 terrorists.

Some Facts About Planet Earth

Here are some interesting facts about the good old earth, pirated directly and shamelessly from a recent AARP bulletin.

The planet is 4.5 billion years old.

As the India tectonic plate pushes against the Eurasian plate, Mt. Everest is getting higher by 3 cm per year.

More than 11 million species live on the planet; humans have named 1.7 million of these.

Oceans cover 70% of earth's surface.

Earth tilts 23.5 degrees on its axis, causing seasonal variation (many people still think we have summer b/c we are closer to the sun then)

Forests harbor 80% of our biodiversity.

The last decade (2000-2010) had th highest average temperatures on record.

Global temperature may rise by as much as 10.4 degrees (C or F?) by 2100.

More than 70 million barrels of crude oil are produced each day.

The 806 million cars and light trucks in the world burn 260 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel per year.

Every square mile of ocean contains 46000 pieces of plastic trash (can this be true?)

Extreme weather may force relocation of 150-200 million people by 2050.

Known species at risk for extinction today: 18300

Ocean temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees (C or F?) since 1970.

One-third of sea level rise is due to the ocean's higher temperature.

Sea level is predicted to be 3 feet higher by 2100.

Renewable energy provides 8% of total US energy. Other sources: petroleum (37%), natural gas (25%), coal (21%), nuclear (9%)

Source of greenhouse gases: electric power (35%), transportation (27%), industry (20%), agriculture (7%), commercial (6%), residential (5%).

In the last 50 years, the average price of a gallon of gas grew from 25 cents to $3.50.

In the last 50 years, world oil consumption grew from 21.3 million to 85.8 million barrels per day.

Average US house size grew from 983 square feet in 1950 to 2377 square feet in 2010.

The ozone hole is predicted to disappear by 2050, due to banning of freons.

The average American accounted for 17.7 metric tons (2200 pounds) of CO2 in 2009, down from 20.3 metric tons in 2005 (although still 4x the world average).

Biofuel could soon be used in jets--is this a good thing?

To tread lightly: buy and eat less meat; set your water heater at 120 deg; don't use your fireplace; reduce your shower time by 5 minutes; don't rinse dishes before putting in the dishwasher; use native plants only in your garden; bank online; wash clothes with cold water.

A New Political Party

We need a new political party with a platform of fundamental reasonableness and fairness. I propose we call it the "Party of Reason". I've started a platform with a few planks below. Please add planks in your comments.

Platform for the Party of Reason
1) All planks adopted by the party shall meet fundamental standards of reason and fairness.
2) Candidates for office in the US House of Representatives, US Senate, and US Presidency shall under no circumstances spend in excess of $1 million during a campaign for office. No corporate or labor union campaign contributions of any kind may be accepted by any candidate.
3) Representatives shall be elected for a single term of 6 years.
4) Senators shall be elected for no more than 2 consecutive or non-consecutive terms of 6 years each.
5) The President shall be elected for a single term of 6 years.
6) Terms of representatives, senators, and the president shall be structured to be mutually offset by 2 years.
7) The congress shall pass a totally restructured system of income/payroll taxation, which shall be contained in a document no more than 10 pages in length and shall be worded in plain English. Features of the system shall be
    a) No income tax shall be paid by anyone earning less than a specified low amount (for example, $10,000/year).
    b) Incomes exceeding the minimum amount shall be taxed in slightly progressive fashion to a maximum of 50%. All income, including capital gains and dividends, shall be taxed at the same rate.
    c) There shall be no exceptions (loopholes) for any individuals under any circumstances.
    d) Corporations, according to their status as "persons", shall be taxed at a slightly progressive rate based on annual revenues, to a maximum of 35%.
    e) There shall be no exceptions (loopholes) for any corporation under any circumstances.
    f) The congress shall make appropriate changes in payroll taxation so as to restore the long-term solvency of the social security and medicare/medicaid programs.
8) Congress shall pass a program of universal, single-provider health care similar to those now operative in many European nations.
9) The US defense budget shall be reduced within 5 years to 30% of its current level. Savings shall be applied to programs benefiting citizens.
10) The Congress and President shall immediately begin to tackle problems of real substance: our gross overdependence on fossil fuels; the development of alternative energy sources; the building of generation IV nuclear power plants; global climate change.
11) The Congress shall immediately inact a carbon tax (fee) on all fossil fuels at the source. The fee shall be based on the carbon content of the fuel, and shall be structured as a percentage of the market value of the fuel. One-half of tax proceeds shall be returned to the citizens as dividends; the other half shall be used to fund alternative energy development. The carbon tax shall be incrementally increased each year, with the goal to completely eliminate fossil fuel use within 24 years (by 2025).
12) CONGRESS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS PASSED BY IT without exception.
13) Adjust government employment ,including the military, to the private sector pay plans. Local, state, and county government employees should be included in this plan.
14)Foreign aid should be curtailed for at least 10 years until Americans can rebuild America.

Please add planks, or comment on those that I have generated.

A Solution to "Crises" in Social Security and Government Spending

I have suggestions for resolving the impending funding crises in social security, medicare/medicaid, and the federal budget in general.

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid: all people who oppose these programs on ideological grounds (those who vote republican in general elections, probably about half of the voting population) should refrain from accepting benefits from the programs. They should instead pay their own way. This would immediately reduce expenditures of these programs by about half, generating a surplus in available funds. It would also allow these people to stop living life as hypocrites. These individuals would be allowed to stop paying taxes, because I am sure they will sorely need the money.

General federal government spending: All states that have elected conservative representatives and senators should forgo all federal funding for infrastructure repair/maintenance, education, health care, and disaster relief. Representatives of such states should be forbidden from introducing "pork" into otherwise responsible bills. These states should agree to live up to the rhetoric of their elected officials and cut themselves loose entirely from the tyranny of the federal government. Again, any other policy is hypocritical. If all of the conservative states would do this, we would probably be able to reduce the federal deficit in record time.

Come on, step up! All I'm suggesting is that you live according to your convictions!

The Paradox of Thrift

How about this conservative idea of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, forcing the government to spend no more than it takes in each year in revenues? Do you think this is a good idea? The argument is that the government should behave just like an individual, or a family, in limiting its expenses to no more than its income. Seems like a good idea if you don't think about it too much.

There is an economic phenomenon known as the Paradox of Thrift, attributable (I think) to John Maynard Keynes. The paradox is that saving by persons and families, in order to improve their individual financial situations, hurts the economy as a whole by reducing consumption, which comprises 60% of GDP. Decreased consumption decreases business income, so businesses contract, laying off employees. This decreases incomes of individuals, which decreases consumption even more. The paradox: what's good for the individual, when done on a mass scale, is bad for the economy as a whole.

We are in this situation now (mid 2011). There is high unemployment; people are spending less; businesses are producing less, and not hiring; decreased personal and business incomes means decreased tax revenues for the government. This seems to require cutting government spending, which is demanded by conservatives. But this will only make this situation WORSE by destroying public jobs and providing less government stimulus to the economy. This will contribute to the downward spiral of jobs, spending, production, tax revenues, and so on. Cutting government spending in a recession is the worst thing that we can do. We need the opposite--to increase government spending to stimulate the economy, to increase money flow, to prod consumer demand, to in turn prod business production.

If we want to see a major recession/depression/economic meltdown, let's do what the conservatives want, and cut spending to the bone. Further, let's set it in stone by with a balanced budget amendment, which will deprive government of one of its main tools (fiscal expansion) for combatting recession.

Ranking America

Morals/Ethics/Values/Culture

According to a study by the journal International Family Planning Perspectives, in 1999 (the year the study was published), the United States ranked twenty-fourth in terms of abortion rates. Vietnam ranked first.

According to the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, the United States ranks first both in the total number of civilian firearms and in per capita ownership of small firearms.
According to the most recent data available from the OECD, 8.1% of 15-year-old Americans smoke at least once a week. This makes the United States rank twenty-fifth out of the twenty-five participating OECD countries. Austria ranks first, at 27.1%.

According to a 2009 survey by Gallup, 65% of Americans say that religion is very important in their daily lives which makes the United States rank eighty-fifth out of one-hundred-and-fourteen countries ranked in that category. Bangladesh and Niger tied for first, at greater than 99%.

According to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (as reported at nationmaster.com), in 2002 the United States ranked nineteenth in terms of per capita plastic surgery procedures. Switzerland ranked first.

According to the Canada Council for the Arts, in 2003 the American government distributed the equivalent of 44¢ (Canadian) per capita in public arts grants, which made the United States rank thirteenth out of thirteen countries in that category. Sweden ranked first, distributing $28.38 (Canadian) per capita in arts grants.

According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College, the United States has a prison occupancy rate of 108%, which makes it rank ninety-second in that category. Grenada ranks first, with a prison occupancy rate of 374.5%.

According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, as of March 2010 there are 2,297,400 prisoners in the United States, which makes the United States rank first in that category out of two hundred eighteen ranked countries.

According to data gathered between 1998 and 2000 and published in the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime, there are 805.21 assaults for every 100,000 Americans, a rate that makes the United States rank sixth in that category. Swaziland ranks first, with 1356.84 recorded assaults per 100,000 people.

According to the Pew Global Attitude Project’s 2003 report, Views of a Changing World, 55% of Americans completely agree with the statement, “religion is a personal matter and should be kept separate from government.” The United States is tied for twenty-fifth (out of forty-one countries) with Russia and Uzbekistan in this category. Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) ranks first, with 84% of respondents believing in the separation of church and state.

According to UNESCO (as reported in wikipedia.org), the United States ranks second out of 77 countries in terms of book titles published per year. The United Kingdom ranks first.

According to the OECD, as of June 2009 there were 26.7 broadband internet subscriptions in the United States for every 100 Americans, which makes the United States rank fifteenth out of thirty OECD member nations. Then Netherlands ranks first, at 38.1 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.

According to the OECD, in 2008 the U.S. ranked 10th out of 25 countries in teenage girls who are reported victims of bullies. The U.S. ranks tenth with 10.4 percent. Turkey ranked first with 23.3 percent of reported cases.

According to the Food and Agriculture Oranization of the United Nations, in 2003 the United States ranked eighteenth in terms of per capita alcohol consumption. Ireland ranked first.

According to the World Resources Institute in 2005 the United States experienced 43,443 deaths due to road accidents. That is enough to make the United States rank third out of seventy four countries ranked in that category. China ranks first with 98,738 deaths due to road accidents.

According to the World Health Organization, in 2002, 5.4 out of every 100,000 Americans were killed by violence, a rate that makes the United States rank ninety-ninth in that category. Colombia ranked first, with 72.4 out of every 100,000 Colombians killed by violence.

According to Amnesty International, in 2008 there were at least 111 people sentenced to death in the United States, which made the United States rank eighth in that category. China ranked first, with at least 7003 people sentenced to death.

According to the most recent data made available to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, the United States has a homicide rate of 5.2 per 100,000 people, which makes the United States tied for fifty-second with Argentina out of one hundred thirty-eight ranked countries. Honduras ranks first, with a homicide rate of 60.9 per 100,000.


Science/Education

According to a 2006 study first published in the magazine, Science, the United States ranks thirty-third out of thirty four nations (32 in Europe plus Japan and the United States) in acceptance of evolution. Iceland ranks first. Only Turkey ranked lower than the United States in the acceptance of evolution.

According to the OECD 10.0% of the government expenditure in the United States is spent on education, which makes the United States rank eighth out of twenty-eight ranked nations in that category. Mexico ranks first with 15.1%.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spends $10,821 per student on secondary education, which makes the United States rank fourth in that category. Luxembourg ranks first, at $18,144.

According to the OECD (as reported in NationMaster), the United States ranks fifteenth of twenty-seven member nations in terms of reading literacy. Finland ranks first.

According to the Programme for International Student Assessment, American students scored 502 in the science component of the 2009 PISA assessment. That was enough for the United States to rank twenty-third out of sixty-five ranked economies. China-Shanghai ranked first with a score of 575.

According to the Programme for International Student Assessment, the United States ranks thirty-fifth in terms of the mean score for mathematics. Taiwan ranks first.

According to the United Nations, there are 4,605 professional researchers in the United States for
every 1,000,000 population, which makes the United States rank eighth in that category. Tonga ranks first, with 45,454 researchers per 1,000,000 population.

According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), in 2003, fifteen year old students in the United States had an average literacy score of 495 out of 1000, which made the United States rank eighteenth out of forty nations. Finland ranked first, with an average score of 543.

According to the OECD, between 2003 and 2006, American students declined by nine points in their PISA mathematics performance scores, which made the United States rank thirty-fourth out of thirty nine countries in that category. Indonesia ranked first, with an increase of 31 points in the PISA score. For the OECD as a whole, there was a decline of two points between 2003 and 2006. The worst performing country was France, with a decline of fifteen points.

According to the most recent data available from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the top teacher salary for primary teachers in the United States in 1999 was $48,782, making the U.S. rank fifth in that category. South Korea ranked first, with a top teacher salary of $69,818. The OECD mean salary in that category was $36,145.


Economic

According to the World Bank, 44.9% of the total land area in the United States is agricultural land, which makes the United States rank eighty-third in that category. Burundi ranks first, with 89.4% of its land used as agricultural land.

According to OICA, in 2007 the United States ranked fourth in terms of the number of automobiles manufactured, with 3,924,268 cars made that year. Japan ranked first with 9,944,637 cars made.

According to the report Doing Business 2011, the United States ranks fifth in terms of the ease of doing business in a country. Here are the top ten countries in this ranking:
1.Singapore
2.Hong Kong
3.New Zealand
4.United Kingdom
5.United States
6.Denmark
7.Canada
8.Norway
9.Ireland
10.Australia

According to the OECD Factbook 2008, in 2006 the United States spent the equivalent of 2.62% of the gross domestic product (GDP) on research and development. That was enough to make the United States rank fourth out of forty-one nations. Israel ranked first, at 4.48%.

According to the OECD, the United States has a poverty rate of around 17%, which makes the United States rank third out of thirty OECD member nations in that category. Mexico ranks first, with a poverty rate of around 18.5%. The median poverty rate for OECD member nations is around 11%.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2002 the United States produced 12.24% of the world’s fertilizer, making it rank second in that category. China ranked first, producing 21.62% of the world’s fertilizer.

According to data from FAOstat in 2009, the United States produced 373,440 tonnes of tobacco, or 7.7% of the world’s tobacco supply. That is enough for the United States to rank third in that category. China ranked first, producing 3,001,725 tonnes, or 62.3% of the world total.

According to the World Bank, Americans in 2008 paid $ 0.56 per liter at the gas pumps making the United States rank one hundred and forty-eighth of one hundred and sixty-seven countries ranked in that category. Eritrea ranked first, paying $2.53 per liter at the gas pumps.

According to the latest data available from CIA World Factbook, the United States has a public debt of 58.9% of the total GDP. This is enough to make the United States rank thirty-sixth in that category. Zimbabwe ranks first with a public debt of 241.6% of their total GDP.

According to the International Trade Centre, in 2005 the United States exported $1,735,282,000 worth of iron and steel bars, rods, angles, and shapes, enough to make the United States rank tenth in that category. Germany ranks first, exporting $5,333,026,000 worth of iron and steel.

According to the British Geological Survey, in 2006 the United States produced 242,000 kilograms of gold from gold mines, or 10.5% of the world’s total, enough to make the United States rank fourth in that category. South Africa ranked first, producing 272,128 kilograms, or 11.8% of the world total. Together, the top five gold producing countries–South Africa, China, Australia, the United States, and Russia–accounted for 50.5% of the world’s total.


According to the World Steel Association, in 2008 the United States produced 91.5 million metric tonnes of steel, a decline of 6.8% from 2007. In both years, the United States ranked third in that category. China ranked first, producing 502 million metric tonnes of steel in 2008, up 2.6% from the previous year. Globally, there was a decline of 1.2% in total steel production from 2007 to 2008.

According to the United Nations Development Programme, between 2000 and 2005 there were 244 patents granted in the United States for every 1,000,000 people. That makes the United States rank third in that category. South Korea ranks first, with 1113 patents per million people.

According to data from The World Bank, the United States has 820 motor vehicles per every 1,000 people, which is enough to make the United States rank third in that category. The Netherlands Antilles ranks first with 1,214 motor vehicles per 1,000 people.

According to the OECD Factbook 2008, in 2006 Americans worked an average of 1797 hours for the year, which makes the United States rank eleventh out of thirty four nations in that category. Korea ranked first, with an average of 2357 hours worked. The OECD average was 1777 hours.

According to the International Trade Centre, the United States imported 4.4 billion dollars worth of gold in 2009, which makes the United States rank second in that category. India ranks first with 10.9 billion dollars worth of gold imported.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has family income distribution Gini Index score of 45.0, which makes the United States rank forty-third out of one hundred and thirty four countries in that category. Namibia ranks first, with a Gini index score of 70.7. The higher the Gini Index score, the greater the degree of income inequality. Sweden has the lowest score, at 23.0

According to worldwide-tax.com, the top federal individual income tax rate in the United States is 35%, which makes the United States tied for twenty-eighth with several other countries out of sixty-two ranked countries. Denmark ranks first, with a top income tax rate of 59%.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, the United States has an innovation index score of 9.50, which makes the United States tied for third with Finland in that category. Japan ranks first, with a score of 10.00.

According to the OECD, in 2006 the United States ranked 26th out of 30 member nations in terms of tax ratio as percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).

According to the OECD, in 2009, the United States had a long-term unemployment rate of 16.3%. This is enough to make the United States rank twenty-third out of the thirty-four participating OECD countries in that category. Slovakia ranks first with a long-term unemployment rate of 50.9%.

According to the OECD, 12% of American workers were union members in 2004, which made the United States rank twenty-seventh out of thirty OECD member nations. Sweden ranked first, with 77.3% of workers as union members.

According to the OECD, the U.S. has a productivity rate of $57.40 per hour worked, which makes the United States rank fourth in that category. Luxembourg ranks first, at $74.00 per hour worked.

According to the OECD, the average American spends 24% of her or his day in leisure activities, which makes the United States rank twelfth out of eighteen OECD nations in that category. Belgium ranks first, at 27.7%, and Mexico ranks last, at 15.8%. The OECD average is 24.1%.


Health/Lifestyle

According to a presentation to the IFPE Congress in Vienna, Austria on April 18, 2009, on the results of World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey, 19% of Americans experience a clinical anxiety disorder in a given twelve-month period, which makes the United States rank first in that category.

According to the World Health Organization, 54.5% of all healthcare expenditures in the United States in 2007 were privately paid, which makes the United States rank forty-sixth out of one hundred ninety-one ranked countries ranked in that category. Guinea ranked first, with 89.0% of all healthcare expenditures being paid privately.

According to UNICEF, the United States has an under-5 mortality rate of 8 per 1,000 live births, which makes the United States tied for one-hundred-and-fifty-first in that category with Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, and the United Arab Emirates. Sierra Leone ranks first, with an under-5 mortality rate of 262 per 1,000 live births.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States ranks third in total numbers of mobile cellular phones. China ranks first.

According to the World Health Organization’s World Health Statistics, 2008, the United States has a cancer mortality rate of 134 per 100,000 population, which makes it tied for eighty-ninth (with Congo, Italy, and Luxembourg) in that category. Mongolia ranks first, with a cancer mortality rate of 306 per 100,000 population. Kiribati has the lowest rate, at 52 per 100,000.

According to the OECD in 2008 the U.S. ranks second out of 33 countries in out of pocket health expenses. The average per person out of pocket health expense in the U.S. is $912. Switzerland ranked first with a cost of $1424 (U.S. dollars) per person.

According to data gathered in 2005 by the World Health Organization, annual per capita health care costs in the United States are $6350, which makes the United States rank first in that category.

According to the World Health Organization, the United States has an obesity rate of 5.6% among children under 5, which made the United States rank 20th out of 92 ranked nations in that category. Albania ranked first, with a childhood obesity rate of 22.4%.

According to the CIA’s World Factbook, the United States has 6.26 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births, which makes the United States rank one hundred and eightieth out of 224 countries in terms of infant mortality rates. Angola ranks first, with 180.21 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births.

According to the 2009 OECD Factbook, the United States has a suicide rate of 10.2 per 100,000 persons, which makes the United States rank twentieth out of twenty-seven ranked nations in that category. Hungary ranks first, with a suicide rate of 22.6 per 100,000 persons.

According to the United Nations, 11.6% of Americans have a probability of not living to the age of sixty, a rate that makes the United States rank twenty-seventh out of fifty-one ranked countries in the likelihood of living to age sixty. Iceland ranks first, with only a 5.9% chance of not living to age sixty.


Environment

According to the World Resources Institute, in 2005 there were 54,312,000 hectares of protected land (national parks, wilderness areas, and nature reserves) in the United States, 13.7% of the world’s total. That was enough to make the United States rank first in that category.

According to the World Resources Institute, the United States has renewable water resources in the amount of 10,333 cubic meters per person, which is enough to make the United States rank fifty-sixth in that category. Iceland ranks first, with 582,192 cubic meters of per capita renewable water. For the world as a whole, there is 8,549 cubic meters of renewable water per person.

According to the World Health Organization, in 2008, 94% of rural Americans had access to improved drinking water sources, which makes the United States rank sixty-fourth in the world in that category. More than twenty countries tied for first, each with 100% access to improved drinking water sources.

According to the World Resources Institute, there are 38,152,300 hectares of arid land in the United States, which makes the United States rank fifteenth out of the fifty-four nations with arid land. Australia ranks first, with 301,090,000 hectares of arid land.

According to the World Resources Institute, in 2003 the United States emitted 19.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person, which made the United States rank seventh in that category. Qatar ranked first, emitting 44.4 tonnes per person.

According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2009 the United States emitted 5,424.53 million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide from the consumption of energy, which is enough to make the United States rank second in that category. China ranks first, emitting 7706.83 million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide.

According to the Global Footprint Network, the United States ranks third among all countries in terms of the size of its carbon footprint. The United Arab Emirates ranks first.

According to the Global Footprint Network, the United States has consumption footprint of 9.42 global hectares per person, which makes the United States rank second in that category. The United Arab Emirates ranks first, at 9.46 global hectares per person.

According to data gathered between 2000 and 2010 by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2007 the United States withdrew 15.53% of its total renewable freshwater resources, which makes the United States rank sixtieth in that category. Kuwait ranks first, withdrawing 2075% of its total renewable freshwater resources in 2002.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the United States withdraws an estimated 478.40 cubic kilometers of groundwater each year, which makes the United States rank third in the world in that category. India ranks first, withdrawing an estimated 761.00 cubic kilometers per year.

According to the Global Footprint Network, the total ecological footprint of the United States is 9.4 global hectares per capita, which makes it rank second in that category. The United Arab Emirates ranks first, with an ecological footprint of 9.5 global hectares per capita.

According to the OECD, the Americans generated 450 kilograms per person of household waste in 2005, which makes the United States tied for seventh (with Australia) in that category. Denmark ranks first, at 620 kilograms per capita.


Military

According to the World Bank, 1.0% of the total workforce of the United States is in the armed forces, which makes the United States tied for seventieth with several other countries in that category. North Korea ranks first, with 10.6% of its workforce in the armed forces.

According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2005 the United States spent 4.1% of their GPD on military expenditures, enough to make the United States rank twenty-fourth out of the 174 countries that were ranked in that category. Oman ranks first, spending 11.4% of their GPD on military expenditures.

According to the International Trade Centre, in 2005, the United States accounted for 47% of the world’s total arms and ammunition exports, making it rank first in that category. The second biggest arms exporting country, France, accounted for only 7% of the total.

According to the International Trade Centre, in 2005 the United States exported $469,113,000 worth of explosives and pyrotechnics (fireworks), or 24.7% of the world’s total. That was enough to make the United States rank first in that category.

According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the United States ranks first in terms of military spending.


Government

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy , 2008, the United States has a political participation score of 7.22, which makes it tied for seventeenth in that category with South Africa and South Korea. Norway and Sweden are tied for first, with a political participation score of 10.

According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 16.8% of federally elected officials in the United States are women, which makes the United States tied for seventieth with Turkmenistan in that category. Rwanda ranks first, at 56.3%.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2010, the United States has a civil liberties score of 8.53 out of a possible score of 10.00. This makes the United States tied for forty-sixth in democracy with Italy, South Africa, France, and Hungary. Several countries tied for first with a score of 10.00, including Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Uruguay. The United States has the lowest civil liberties of any fully democratic country.

According to the Democracy Index 2010, the United States has a democracy score of 8.18 (out of 10 possible points), which makes the United States rank seventeenth out of one hundred sixty-seven countries ranked in that category. Norway ranks first, with a score of 9.80.

According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, the United States has a freedom from corruption score of 75, which makes the United States rank nineteenth out of one hundred seventy-nine ranked countries. New Zealand ranks first, with a score of 94.


Energy

According to British Petroleum, the United States ranks first in proven coal deposits, with 27% of the world’s total known deposits. Combined, the United States, Russia, China, India, and Australia have more than three-quarters of the world’s proven coal reserves.

According to the International Energy Agency, in 2006 the United States consumed 13,515 kilowatt hours of electricity per capita, which makes the United States rank tenth in that category. Iceland ranked first, consuming 31,306 kilowatt hours per capita. The world average was 2659 kilowatt hours per capita.

According to the World Resources Institute, in 2001 the United States ranked fifth in electricity consumption per capita. Iceland ranked first.

According to British Petroleum, in 2006 the United States consumed the equivalent of 187.5 million tonnes of oil, or 29.5% of the world’s total nuclear energy consumption, enough to make the United States rank first in that category.

According to the CIA Worldfact Book, in 2009 the United States used about 18.69 million barrels of gasoline per day. That’s enough for the U.S. rank first in that category.

According to a survey conducted by World Public Opinion, 66% of Americans believe the government should force utilities to use more wind and solar energy, even at the risk of greater cost to consumers. This rate makes the United States rank sixteenth out of twenty-four countries in this category. South Korea ranks first, with 96% of Koreans favoring such a policy. Russia ranks last, at 36%. The world average is 69%.

According to the International Energy Agency’s Key World Energy Statistics, 2008, the United States produces 2128 terrawatt hours of electricity from coal or peat, which means that it ranks second in that category. China ranks first, producing 2301 terrawatt hours from coal or peat. The entire global production from peat or coal is 8674 terrawatt hours. Between them, the United States and China account for 56% of the electricity produced from these sources.

According to British Petroleum, in 2006 the United States generated 22% of the world’s electricity, making it rank first in that category. China, which ranked second, generated 15% of the world total.

According to a 2005 report by the World Resources Institute, 26.2% of all energy use in the United States goes toward industrial use, which makes the United States tied for sixty-fifth with India in that category. Trinidad and Tobago ranks first, at 86.1%.

According to BP, the United States decreased its energy consumption by 1.0% from 2005 to 2006, a rate of change that made it rank fifty-eighth in that category. Denmark ranked first, with an increase of 12.7%.

According to British Petroleum, in 2009 the United States had an oil refinery capacity of 17,688,000 barrels per day, or 19.5% of the world’s total oil refinery capacity. That is enough to make the United States rank first in that category.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States ranks thirteenth in terms of proven oil reserves. Saudi Arabia ranks first.

According to the International Energy Agency, in 2007 the United States had net energy imports equivalent to 713.97 million tons of oil, which makes the United States rank first in that category.

According to siteatlas.com, the United States ranks sixteenth in terms of natural gas consumption per capita. Trinidad and Tobago ranks first. According to siteatlas.com, the United States ranks sixteenth in terms of natural gas consumption per capita. Trinidad and Tobago ranks first.

According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 104 operating nuclear reactors in the United States, or 23.5% of the world’s total operating nuclear reactors. That is enough to make the United States rank first in that category.


Demographics

According to the 2009 United Nations Human Development Report, immigrants make up 13.0% of the total population of the United States, which makes the United States rank thirty-eighth in that category. Qatar ranks first, with immigrants comprising 80.5% of the total population.


Satisfaction

According to the Happy Planet Index, the United States has a life satisfaction score of 7.9 (out of a possible 10), which makes the United States tied for seventh in that category with Australia and Sweden. Costa Rica ranks first, with a score of 8.5.

According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 89% of people in the United States are satisfied with their family life, which makes the United States tied for ninth with Spain, out of fifty-three countries surveyed. India ranks first with 96% of people satisfied with their family life.

According to a 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey, 36% of Americans are satisfied with the direction that the United States is headed. That makes the United States rank seventh out of twenty five countries included in the survey. China ranks first, with 87% of Chinese satisfied with the direction their country is headed.

The Conservative Agenda

We should be able to take as a given that a viable political movement or party should have as its ultimate goal the betterment of the human race, or at least that part of the human race that lives within the physical area in which the movement is operating. The nature of the betterment should be made clear by the movement. The policies and strategies of the movement should be clearly articulated and it should be explained how they lead to the betterment desired by the movement. It is unclear to me that the conservative movement, largely identifiable with the Republican party, has as its ultimate goal the betterment of the lives of US citizens; or that it has any clear ultimate goal whatsoever.

There is agreement among leading conservatives as to policy. Here is what we hear them say:
1) Cut taxes, particularly income, capital gains, and estate;
2) Reduce the size of the federal government by elimination of public education, health care, and social security, thereby enabling large spending cuts. In particular, get rid of that ObamaCare!
3) "Grow" the economy;
4) De-regulate business and finance, allowing laissez-faire capitalism to operate unfettered;
5) Eliminate organized labor;
6) Maintain a strong military;
7) Make life difficult for any one who is not white, of european (preferably northern european) descent, and protestant (preferably evangelically so).
Conservatives, are there ANY I'VE MISSED HERE? FILL ME IN.

It is not clear that these policies are mutually consistent. It is also not clear that they will better the lives of US citizens. One at a time, here's where the policies seem to me to lead.

1) Cuts in income, capital gains, and estate taxes. This policy will ease the tax burden on the wealthy, while doing little to nothing for the citizen of "ordinary" income (say less than $250,000/year). The justification offered for cutting these taxes is that the wealthy will then be able to invest more money in economic capital, leading to economic growth. Economic growth will lead to overall larger tax revenues (despite the tax cuts for the rich). Economic growth will also result in lower rates of unemployment. This is the philosophy of "trickle down", or "supply-side" economics, by which investments by the wealthy lead to increased supply of goods and increased employment, leading to increased demand for goods, leading to further increases in employment, and so on. According to the conservatives, a rising tide (growing economy) will lift all boats. This sounds very good, and even seems to make some sense. The problem is that we have tried it several times, and have demonstrated that it does NOT work. We tried it in the closing decades of the 19th centurey and opening decades of the 20th century (the age of the robber barons, in which income/wealth disparity in the United States was about as extreme as it is now). The result was the 1929 stock market crash and the great depression. We tried it under Reagan in the 1980s. The result was economic downturn and huge budget deficits (because tax cuts to the rich did not result in economic growth, increased tax revenues, and more jobs). We tried it under George W Bush between 2000 and 2008. The result was the housing bubble and the Great Panic of 2007-2008. The economy has never bounced back from that, and unemployment is high. We have ample evidence that lowering taxes on high incomes, huge income/wealth disparity, unregulated capitalism DO NOT WORK. What prevents it from working is human nature (which can be summed up in a simple profane phrase: "Hooray for me, and f--- you". This phrase, by the way, also explains why communism does not work in practice, even though it, too, sounds very good in the ideal). Without the United States government (the taxpayers) to bail out the financial industry and some manufacturing firms, we would today have NO ECONOMY. This is where the conservative policy of tax cuts lead us.

Economic growth is based on DEMAND, not SUPPLY. Demand must come first. The bulk of demand comes from the bulk of the population--the 99% of us that make less than $250,000 per year, not from the people in the top 1% of income. Tax cuts might work to spur demand if they were awarded to this 99%. More money in the hands of the vast majority of Americans will make demand effective, and will quite naturally lead to scale-up in production. But the rich will not spend it. They pretty much have all the amenities. Ordinary citizens have both NEEDS and WANTS. The rich have only WANTS.

We might include in tax cuts the 401k retirement accounts, essentially tax-free retirement savings accounts offered to employees by businesses. Their purpose is to transfer the responsibility of saving for retirement to the worker (part of the personal responsibility crusade). Unfortunately, ordinary people do not have the skills required to adequately manage such an investment account, and do not have enough money to fund such an account. There is no extra money after funding the day-to-day expenses of living. 401ks have been a failure for the ordinary person in the US. The rich, of course, have benefited from them because they can store a lot of money in them tax free. This is essentially, then, a tax cut for the rich.

Now here's a question to which the answer is not at all clear: For what reason would a person making a modest income vote for a conservative who advocates tax cuts for the rich? In what way will this benefit him or her? People are supposed to vote their self-interest. If a policy does not benefit YOU, indeed will probably hurt YOU, why would you vote to support it? Why is Joe the plumber a conservative? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

2) Reduce the size of government by eliminating programs requiring huge spending. Perhaps the true purpose of the tax cut policy is to create a situation (huge deficits) in which elimination of medicare and social security can be justified. "We just aren't producing the tax revenues necessary to sustain these programs." (Never mind that we aren't producing the revenues because of the huge tax cuts that you, the conservative, insist on.) But how will eliminating these programs improve life in America? Social Security is a New Deal (Democratic) program. Medicare is a Great Society (Democratic) program. Both have the clear, humanitarian objective to better the lives of people in the US. But they are very costly. They are supported by tax revenues. The only way to sustain them in the face of the retirement of the baby-boomer generation is to generate more tax revenue. The conservative solution is to NOT sustain them. How will this better our lives? We will have a lot of old people who can't work and who will therefore have NO INCOME WHATSOEVER (because social security will be gone). We will have a lot of old people with substantial medical needs, but who will be unable to pay for care for these needs. What is good or desirable about that? How will anyone who is not extremely wealthy benefit from that? Why would such people vote for a conservative who espouses that?

And education. I admit that public education in the US is abyssmal. Many teachers are ignorant of their own subjects. Infrastructure is decaying. Money is not available to fund up-to-date teaching accessories (computers for example). Creationism is replacing evolution in biology programs in the schools. Pay for teachers is poor. It is nearly impossible to fire poor teachers. Poor teaching results in poor learning. Kids get turned off in the school system somewhere between 4th and 9th grades. I've read arguments that education should be privatized because competition will force out bad teaching. This seems to make sense. There are indeed a few private education firms that are successful (Sylvan Learning is one). But it's a matter of scale. These programs would have to be developed in all areas of the country sufficient to handle all K-12 kids. This development would have to take place before the public system was dismantled, otherwise and educational gap would penalize our kids more than they are already penalized by decrepit teaching and decaying infrastructure and creationism. An alternative is to fix the problems with the public system. Drop the excessive requirements for educational certification. Increase the requirements for some knowledge of your field. Drop tenure. Fire poor teachers, reward good ones. Look for teachers who can ENGAGE students. This seems doable to me.

But here's a problem with the concept of downsizing government: if we make government as small and unobtrusive as the conservatives seem to want it, who is going to bail out the financial system/economy when the next bubble bursts? Big business wants NO regulation--but they sure want bailouts.

3) All politicians demand that we "grow the economy". Capitalism cannot survive without growth. Growth is necessary to provide jobs for an ever-growing work force. Growth is necessary to pay the interest on money that is loaned into existence. Without growth, capitalism dies. We can kind of see that happening now. But how can we grow the economy if we cut taxes? Goal 3 is inconsistent with Goal 1. We have ample evidence that cutting taxes for the rich results in economic slowdown, even depression.

4) Deregulate everything. This means allow big business and big finance to do whatever they want; that the market will reward "good" and penalize "not good." The Arabs want to run the Port Authority of New York? Fine, if there's profit in it for us. The banks want to issue sub-prime mortgages, and sell them to us in the form of asset-backed securities? Fine, there's money to be made, and after all there's no risk to the banks--they've sold it all to us! The natural gas industry wants to frack? Great, go to it (never mind the ground-water contamination, landscape destruction, and conceivably earthquakes that it might cause--these are just externalities that won't show up on the balance sheet). Big oil wants to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Sure, anything to boost domestic production of oil. Never mind that it will only provide enough oil to run our cars for a few weeks. Shale oil development in the Green River basin in Wyoming/Utah? Sure, let's wreck that too! It will provide a lot more bucks for Exxon-Mobil executives. How about geothermal power plants in Yellowstone? Question: what will it provide for those of us who earn less than $250,000/year--that is, the typical US citizen? General Motors wants to close down all US plants and open new plants in Mexico, Singapore, and India? The market demands that they minimize their labor costs. The market is god.

5) Eliminate organized labor.

6) Maintain a strong military. My favorite. We really need this, considering that the total of the 20 next largest militaries is smaller than ours. What if they were to band together and come after us? We spend (a guess) over 500 billion/year on our military. God forbid we cut into that at all. The world is a dangerous place (largely, now, thanks to us!). We need to be ready to defend our shores (against people in rowboats from Cuba; against people walking over from Mexico). We need to be able to intervene all over the world wherever it is in our best interests to do so. We need to be able to make preemptive military strikes against those who may (get that: may) threaten us. What do we really need this military for? My guess: the time is coming when all of remaining oil in the world will be in Saudi Arabia. We need to be able to move in and take that over.

How about we arbitrarily decide to cut the military budget in half? What could we do with that $250 billion that we just freed up?

7) Make life difficult for non-whites (oh, and gay people too--can't forget them). This is an insidious conservative policy. They will probably deny it. But look at SB1070 in Arizona. Nikki Haley (rabid conservative) in South Carolina just signed an anti-immigrant bill. Is not there a similar bill in Georgia? We are now seeing a cutback in a wonderful program, early voting, that expands the number of people who are able to vote. By eliminating this, we are once again making it more difficult for people to vote. Who will be impacted by this? People who work long days and have a hard time getting to the polls. Ordinary people, many of whom do not make much money. Many of whom are black. Many of whom are brown. Many of whom are red. We don't like these people. We don't want them voting in our country. They are not up to snuff. We white people are better than they are. The single most convincing fact that conservatives have an anti-brown/black/red agenda is that the entire tier of southern states switched their allegiance from the democratic to the republican party after the Civil Rights act became law.

Interestingly, many brown and black people fill jobs that we white Americans consider ourselves too good for. Our economy depends crucially on them showing up to work each day. Yet we don't want them to vote? How does that improve lives in America. What will be the ultimate consequence of continuing to abuse these people?

Following a conservative agenda will result in a wrecked economy, a socially-abandoned populace, and a huge sub-population of really pissed off non-whites. We will have a country in which "praying for rain" (Rick Perry, governor of Texas) is accepted as a government policy step.

Conservatives out there, I welcome your comments on this missive. Tell me where I've gone wrong. Make your agenda make sense to me. Explain to me how it will better the lot of ordinary citizens in our country.

I have recently read a book called "The Great Risk Shift" by Jacob Hacker. I highly recommend it. Based on my reading of this book, I think I now understand, the motivation for what Hacker calls the personal responsibility crusade. It is based in disgust with the entitlement mentality that, according to conservatives, government support programs create. It is also based in the desire to eliminate so-called moral hazard. The doctrine of moral hazard maintains that people who are protected from the consequences of risky behavior engage to a greater extent in risky behavior precisely because they now have protection. Government bail-out of the too-big-to-fail banks creates moral hazard, because now banks know they can go back to risky behavior because the government will bail them out if they get in trouble again. Generous expense accounts create moral hazard. It is argued by conservatives that government protection programs such as unemployment insurance create moral hazard by rewarding people for becoming unemployed. I have to admit that I understand these arguments, and to some extent sympathize with them. However, the great advantage of the government-funded protection programs is that they diversify risk. People can live with some degree of security knowing that in certain tough circumstances some help will be available from the government--i.e., from the entirety of the tax-paying public in the United States.

To eliminate the entitlement lifestyle, conservatives advocate making each individual responsible for his own fall-back accounts: retirement savings accounts (401ks), health savings accounts, disability savings accounts, unemployment buffer accounts, child-education accounts, and so on. First, the ordinary person cannot fund a series of such accounts at a level that will be sufficient if a job loss, a health crisis, a work injury, occurs. Second, such accounts are subject to the vagaries of the stock market. What would have happened to peoples' individual safety accounts in 2008 when the stock market crashed? The proposal that individuals take personal responsibility for their own fall-back accounts sounds good. Establishing such accounts, all tax-free of course, would work fine for a family with income of a million dollars a year or so. But a family of four with a total after-tax income of $75,000/year could not possibly divert enough money to these accounts to provide the fall-back needed. The individual accounts concentrate risk in the hands of individuals. When an emergency hits, you are on your own: i.e., you are personally responsible.

Tornados

"Unprecedented", "once-in-a-hundred-years", "biblical" weather events lately, I'm assuming you've noticed. A mile-wide (!) tornado cut a huge path thru Alabama, including Tuscaloosa, killing lots of people. A half-mile wide tornado destroyed Joplin Missouri this past week (May 26 or 27) with 150 people still unaccounted for. More tornados thus far this year than I can believe.

So I am watching CNN this AM, while the anchor sets up the main weather man, Reynolds Wolf, with the question, "Reynolds, why are we seeing all of these tornados?" I dared to think, OK, here we go, he's going to mention climate change! Instead, what did Reynolds say? He said that due to vastly improved technology, we are able to detect and observe many more tornados than used to be possible. Is he suggesting that without technology, we might have missed the mile-wide tornado that killed all of those people in Alabama? But then a commercial came on, and now I think I understand; the sponsor of the CNN news program is the American natural gas industry! The pieces fall into place.

Water Thoughts

Cathryn and I live in Arizona, in the Sonoran Desert. just north of the border with Mexico, at an elevation of about 3300 feet. Our most precious resource is water, which will be hard to come by if the grid goes down. We have been working hard to set up a water harvesting system. I have put gutters on the long side of our Spanish tile roof, and plan to put gutters also on the opposite side. We have on order two 625-gallon water storage tanks, for which I am building platforms. I am told that about 10 minutes of one of our monsoon storms will fill this sized tank to the brim.

Here are some interesting facts about water, taken from "When All Hell Breaks Loose" by Cody Lundin.
-Of the 1700 million square miles of water on the earth, all 326 million trillion gallons of it, less than 0.5% is potable.
-98% of the planet's water is ocean.
-2% of earth's water is fresh but locked up in glaciers.
-0.36% of earth's water is found underground.
-0.036% of earth's water is found in lakes and rivers.
-Each day, the sun evaporates 1 trillion tons of water.
-The human brain is 75% water.
-Human blood is 83% water.
-Human bones are 25% water.
-One inch of rain falling on 1 acre of land provides 27,154 gallons of water.
-Groundwater can take a human lifetime to traverse 1 mile.
-Over 90% of the world's fresh water supply is in Antarctica.
-One drip per second from a leaky faucet can waste 2000 gallons of water per year.
-If all plumbing fixtures in the US were replaced with water-conserving fixtures we could save 3 to 8 billion gallons of water per day.
-The average toilet uses 5 to 7 gallons per flush.
-The average bath uses 36 gallons of water; a shower uses 5 gallons per minute.
-An average American residence uses 107,000 gallons of water per year.
-The United States uses about 346,000 billion gallons of freshwater every day in irrigation, industry, fire fighting, and street cleaning.
-Americans use 5 times more water than Europeans.
-2/3 of the water used in an American home is used in the bathroom.
-Less than 1% of the water treated by public water systems is used for drinking and cooking.
-Water expands by about 1/10 of its volume when it freezes.
-Drinking adequate amounts of water can decrease the risk of colon cancer, bladder cancer, and breast cancer.
-Drinking adequate water can significantly reduce joint and back pain.
-Adequate hydration can prevent and alleviate headaches.
-95% of a tomato is water.
-More than 1.1 billion people do not have regular access to clean water.
-1 billion people must walk 3 or more hours to obtain drinking water.
-In Mexico, 15% of the population must haul or carry water.
-Nearly 2% of US homes have no running water.
-More than 2 billion people do not have a safe supply of water.
-At least 400 million people live in regions with severe water shortages.
-There are more than 70,000 known water pollutants.
-Worldwide, water-born diseases cause about 15 million deaths per year.