Blue Side of Life - Dave's Weblog

Message to Obama

Someday soon the duplicity of our politicians and their treasonous acts will undermine the stability of our republic by wiping out the wealth of the middle class as it is siphoned away one corporate bail out at a time, while the people are kept pacified in their living rooms by endless hours of reality tv. Millions are thrown out of work and their homes as bankers are bailed out and politicians yap about saving the system from the same bankers to whom they hand billions. Don't they understand the danger they now face? The danger of an angered public intent on getting real change and not just platitudes from a smiling face on their TV. Carnage and suffering on main street while wall street gets bonuses breeds revolution. Karma, it's a bitch!

Our citizens must not sit idly by as their president continues to pour billions into a pointless war in Afghanistan at a time when the deficit balloons to astronomical proportions and our ability to pay for our imperial fantasies are mocked by nations in the east that are building reserves rather than fielding armies to battle fields far from home!

Who is John Galt?

The collapse of the world beneath the weight of the looters should make me sad and yet I feel a sort of joy watching the collapse the destroyers have engineered.   Maybe I'm just tired, tired of the lack of purpose I feel, tired at the feeling that nothing means anything anymore.   We all just turn, cogs in the wheels of unknown unseen machinery for the benefit of someone we never see or know.  Our money, the unit of trade for our effort controlled by bankers and pension funds accountable to no one.   Wall Street masters of the universe reap high rewards offering nothing but valueless junk in return and people's savings are locked up in the hands of these false prophets of finance through government sponsored tax chains.   Locked in ever increasing debt loads as they are told that it is their duty to spend their disposable income and load up on ever increasing debt, a patriotic duty to drive the economy forward.   I had to choke back tears of frustration as I read an article extolling how it was a positive sign for the economy when the consumer debt increased a bit as it shows signs that the consumer may be gaining confidence and could be a sign of recovery for the economy.  

How did we come to the point where living beyond our means was a value to be encouraged?   What sick sort of economy is it that we drive it forward through the ballooning of debt, making ourselves slaves to the banks that own that debt?   How did we come to a point where we accept a government that dictates how we invest for our future by chaining us like slaves through tax policy?   Where is the outrage at government that allowed to happen?   Where is the outrage at ourselves for being so ignorant and foolish as to have elected these criminals?   When will the outrage at the constant stream of billions upon billions of dollars become enough to drive us to action.  Drive us to say enough is enough we will not accept this one moment longer.  

When will the anger boil over to allow a significant third party, a third party not controlled by the puppet strings of the Wall Street flunkies, not controlled by the powerful voices of the 500 largest corporations in the country?

Enough is enough!  Frankly I hope they fuck it up so big they get burned at the stake by the people they have financially raped.    

Purpose

"Francisco, what's the most depraved type of human being?"

"The man without a purpose."

- Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged

   

The tragedy of our existence is that the world is what we see before us.   We have quit, if we ever really did, asking why and have accepted it as the hand dealt to us.   Fearful of making the wrong decision we instead choose to blame a force beyond our individual ability to overcome.  We glibly attribute the failures of the world to frailties inbred in human nature, hiding from our own responsibility.  A responsibility that rests with the individual not the collective, for in reality the collective is nothing more than an opiate for the misery that comes from a lack of purpose.   It is an illusion that allows the individual to avoid the maddening and frightening details of life and become the cog that never has to ask why.   It allows one to throw their hands up and ask "Who is John Galt?". 

    We have built a world of interconnections that strips away individuality and individual responsibility, replacing it with a system which is erroneously heralded for the greater good of the collective.   The individual is ridiculed and belittled as a relic of a bygone era, a vulgar testament to greed and avarice which threatens the whole.   We have accepted the false notion that the financial crisis we face today is the proof of the failure of free market principles, when in reality our financial system is anything but free market in nature.   The free market has been entwined in a fatal embrace with government for so long that one can hardly see where one begins and the other ends.   Industry leaders move in and out of government posts with regularity and ease.   Politicians are seen as gatekeepers to the free market, choosing the winners and losers and extinguishing the purifying fire of failure.   Competence and ability have been weeded out with ruthless abandon, protecting only those with connections to the political system.   When we do not allow failure to be rewarded with destruction how can we expect anything but more failure?   The idea that government and collectivism can save us is the antithesis of what we see laid out before us today.  

    People are searching for a messiah that cannot come from the failures of socialism or communism, but must instead come from the success or failure of each individual.   The discovery of a purpose and the burning desire to see that goal transformed into reality is the engine for the betterment of the world.   The constant purging of failure clears the way for those with the combination of vision and ability to move forward.  
   
    We must fight the urge to protect failed ideas, for to reward failed ideas is the height of immorality and irresponsibility.   Incompetent people, who have sought the easy path in a market controlled and operated by a  parasitic political class, are using fear to drive people to the acceptance of this immoral and irresponsible protectionism.  Vision, ability, and drive are in short supply, all to often overwhelmed by a glut of resignation and hope.   Hope is an emotion for  people who suffer from the scourge of weakness and a lack of ability.  Hope is nothing more than vision without ability to execute.   People invested in products they did not understand in the hopes of unrealistic gains.  Gains not from investment in hard work or the creation of industry, but in the creation of mountains of paper and debt.   Politicians want us to accept the immoral transfer of wealth from future generations to prop up a rigged market that has proven itself incapable because it suits their needs, not because it is in the best interest of the greater good they claim to serve.   The same people who claim these bank bailouts are necessary to protect the people are very ones benefiting the most from the bailout.   They have failed in every possible way, lacking any purpose other than the accumulation of money without the production of value in exchange.  Now we are told that we must protect them to protect the market and the welfare of the people, which is nothing more than the foolishness of fools.  

    But perhaps it is already to late to put an end to this terrifying conflagration which we now face.   Is the world so corrupt and overrun by the weeds of collectivism as to render useless the drive and vision of the individual?   It could be that the best course of action is the protection of our individual resources to await the collapse the idiots have engineered.   Social order among a collective is such a delicate and fragile thing, always in danger of being shattered by failure when failure is not allowed.  It breeds an environment where the delivery of the individual's basic needs is in the hands of government bureaucrats.  In the end, such a government must develop a police state infrastructure to protect against a failure to provide those needs.  Which is where we find ourselves today, as the United States slides down that very horrible path.   We now have a political system where legislators vote on legislation that they have not even had the chance to read, let alone contemplate or debate.  Legislators who ignore the will of the people, making decisions based entirely upon the fearful predictions espoused by market participants, who claim they are too big to fail without apocalyptic consequences.  Of course, they have grown so big in an environment where they control the government manipulation of a market that was supposed to be free and open.   I have come to the sad conclusion that our country is likely too far gone to be saved by the individualism that fueled its creation, there is no longer  a strong enough belief in those principles to allow a republic to operate.   We are a nation that is looking for a messiah to provide for us rather than looking to ourselves for that salvation.  The incompetent attack the successful through market manipulation rather than real unfettered competition, which undermines the health of the republic.
 
   The time has come where investment must be in the instruments of production of the necessities of individual survival with the goal of weathering the coming storm.   A storm which could of rip the very fabric of this republic to shreds.   I will not allow fear to be an excuse for my own failure.   I will not allow hope to idle me from action to provide for my own well being.

The Decent Into the Post Apocalyptic Abyss

Our leaders joyfully extol the virtues of a globalized world while our industries flee the country like rats from the sinking ship. Captains of industry abandon ship leaving the passengers to flounder in a sea of chaos. The United States has left its position of leadership never to return because we are no longer capable of producing anything but toxic debt instruments and worthless paper investments. Our politicians have encouraged and cajoled us into a Ponzi scheme of debt, debased our fiat currency, and squandered our military might. The politicians wring their hands and talk about stimulus plans and banker bailout plans that have no hope of solving the underlying problem. They hope only to prop the system up for another day so they carry on plundering the system.

Barack Obama is heralded as a grass roots leader beholden to no special interest. A man who will return integrity and openness to the business of governing. Yet within days of taking office the tentacles of corporate influence are working their way through the department of defense. An inauguration which broke records for the number of corporate jets arriving lets us know exactly who bought and paid for the man in the Oval office. No matter how fervent the people are for change absolutely nothing has changed. The faces and names have changed but the agenda is the same and the American people continue to sleep as their country is stolen out from under them.

The engine that has driven our economic development has been sabotaged for the benefit of the very few and unless we allow those who have done the damage to fail we will see our economic system collapse and be replaced with something which will consolidate even more power into the hands of the government. The government should not concern itself with the well being of the masters of the universe who played the economy like a ritzy Vegas casino. The focus should be on shoring up the smallest of depositors in the retail banking sector. The people who have put their paychecks and payrolls into the banks for safe keeping. The people at the top who invested in these mountains of completely incomprehensible credit swaps and mortgaged backed securities need to fail. The stockholders in these banks will suffer but they did not do their due diligence. They invested in companies they did not understand and when the bubble bursts they should not be looking for government handouts.

The fires of this crisis were nurtured and fueled by the very government that is now trying to save us from the flames. The hand of government can be seen in creation of the housing bubble through the policies of Clinton’s flunkies in Housing and Urban Development who said it was the government’s job to encourage everyone to own a home. With the seeds of the housing bubble planted and the lending industry encouraged by the government edict to get people qualified for loans and a complete lack of oversight the weeds took over. Mortgages were made and then packaged into AAA rated debt and sold into the market as if they were as good as gold. This false gold has destroyed the free market and instead of putting our faith in free market principles president Bush rejected the free market and embraced government intervention and socialism to protect the wealthy. The end is near my friends and government will not and cannot save us.

Runaway

Deep as this hole is already, I just keep digging.  Climbing out becomes impossible the deeper I go.   But, I must like this otherwise I'd grab the rope that is right above my head.  There is a struggle for the controls and the bastard who wants to crawl into a hole and hide from the world is winning.  Nietzsche said Blessed are the forgetful: for they get the better even of their blunders.   Perhaps you are doubly blessed if you manage your life in such away as there is nothing to forget.   Efficiency is a mark of greatness right?  

The Danger we Face - Part Two

In my last post I looked at the policies and positions of Barack Obama, who at this time appears poised to take the Democratic nomination.   I explained why I don't believe he is up to the task of saving this country from the danger we face.   In this post I would like to take a look at the positions put forward by John McCain, the presumed nominee on the Republican side.   Does he measure up to the dangers we face?   

As I have said before, I feel there is a great danger ahead which no politician in the last 30 years has been willing to address, and that danger is the unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare.   We are facing a short fall of $50 trillion in the coming decades for these two programs.   By 2040 the Social Security and Medicaid budget will consume 100% of our national budget.   With this in mind I took a look at John McCain's website to see just what he has to say on the subject:

John McCain Will Reform Social Security. He will fight to save the future of Social Security while meeting our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts – but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. He will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity.

The Libertarian in me likes the sound of personal accounts, but there is very little detail to be found on his website about his plan.   This sounds to me like a rehash of the Bush plan which never found any traction in Congress.   Frankly, this sounds to me like more sound bite politics designed to capture the conservative voter.   What I would like to see John McCain call for is plan that would allow younger workers to opt out of the system entirely.  The Federal Government has proven itself to be completely incompetent when it comes to running a pension plan.   John McCain says he will not leave office without fixing the problems which threatens our future prosperity which begs the question, how?

Part of what has lead us to this point is that with each new administration, with each new congress that heads to Washington D.C. the government gets bigger and more expensive.   John McCain talks a good game about cutting costs and increasing ethics in government.  On his website under the section on ethics his campaign says:   

Among the most glaring abuses in Washington is the willful setting aside of taxpayer dollars for the pet projects of special interests, often through last minute additions to appropriations bills. Pork barrel spending is an insult to taxpayers, a waste of public resources, and an abdication of our leaders' responsibility to be good and honorable stewards of the public treasury, for the benefit of all Americans, not just a few.

Too often it appears that elected leaders use the treasury as a campaign kitty, channeling taxpayer dollars for pet projects to preserve incumbency rather than to meet national needs. John McCain has been a tireless warrior against wasteful spending, and one of the few leaders who has the guts to challenge abusive Congressional earmarks and the pork barrel politics that grip Washington. John McCain understands that, fundamentally, wasteful spending is an issue of ethics.

This is a good start and I certainly won't argue with him there.   I commend him for never once joining in on the corrupt and wasteful earmark game played by so many of his colleagues.   It would certainly be a welcome change to find a true fiscal conservative in the White House.   But, again this seems to be more of a sound bite than a true solution to any problem.   If we are going to really make a difference and have a return to government we can afford we need a president willing to do far more than veto a few bills which contain embedded pork spending projects.   

In my previous post I quoted from Ron Paul's book The Revolution and I will draw from his text once again here to make a point.   In his chapter on economic freedom he talks about the intellectual and institutional inertia that builds up once the Federal Government becomes involved in some new activity.  Once the bureaucratic infrastructure is created we loose the ability to question its existence.  In fact, the bureaucracy itself then has a vested interest in ensuring that its existence is maintained and its budget increases each year.   Their performance is immaterial at that point all that matters is that its budget must get bigger each passing year.  For instance, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) had a budget of $121 Million in 2006, but private donations to the arts totaled $2.5 Billion.   As Ron Paul wrote "Freedom works after all. And that money is almost certainly better spent than government money: NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications.  I have my doubts tha the same people populate both categories."

What we need is a president who will challenge the intellectual inertia which says the Federal Government must meddle our local school systems.   We need president who will challenge the intellectual inertia which says our Federal Government needs to continue to fight and loosing the war on drugs, which will reportedly consume $12.8 Billion in FY 2008.   We could do more to fight the ill effects drugs have on society by decriminilizing the activity.   On all of these subjects Mr. McCain is silent, he will no doubt maintain the same failed policies which have drained our tax dollars with pitiful results.   

But what does John McCain have to say about foreign policy?   Again I turned to his website and what I found disturbes me greatly.   Regarding the challenges America faces in the 21st century his campain has this to say:

America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This sounds to me like code for nation building, and his campaign goes on to say this:

Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time.

John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation's defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today.

So it sounds to me that, much like Obama, John McCain plans to continue to support American troops occupying bases in 130 nations around the globe.  Add to that his cavaliere attidude towards making incendary remarks regarding Iran (i.e. singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran to the tune of the beach boys Barbara Ann) and he begins to look like a bit of a Bush clone.   He has fallen in with the neocon belief that somehow having a dialog with Iran will encourage them to go nuclear.   This arrogant attitude that we cannot even have a dialog with our enemy seems counter productive.   Now, I am not advocating handing them keys to the Lincoln Bedroom, but what harm is there in sitting in a room face to face and talking?

I find John McCain sorely lacking when it comes to the things that are important to me in this election with one exception.   He does seem to at least respect the second amendment which is very important to me.   Obama is a typical left wing liberal who will no doubt destroy our second amendment rights at every possible opportunity.   His Supreme Court nominees will be hostile toward our second amendment rights.    I do sincerly hope Mr. McCain's support of the second amendment is more than lip service.   His positions outlined during his campaign for president in 2000 do concern me.   During that campaign he supported measures which would have put severe restrictions on gunshows which in my mind would have violated the second amendment.   

The Danger we Face

Every government ever formed presents its governed with a particularly insidious danger.   The danger I speak of is one which must be guarded against with the utmost vigor and vigilance by the people.   When, in our daily lives, we get to the point where we cannot possibly know the truth about the dangers we face, tyranny will surely be just around the corner.  We find ourselves complacent and at the mercy of our political class, those who secure their living  off the sweat and blood of those they claim to serve.   

To trust the political class implicitly is foolishness bordering upon the insane.  Those entrusted with the operation of government are pulled by conflicting influences which do not often align their interests with those of the people they govern.   Once elected, their focus becomes the short term security of their source of power and influence and the best interests of the nation hold little sway over their actions.  For example, today our budget deficit has reached $9 trillion.   As large as that number is it is dwarfed by the $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare which will come due in the decades to come.   In their eagerness to secure power our political class has repeatedly put off dealing with the elephant in the room which now threatens the financial stability of the entire system.   Rather than deal with the coming crisis the politicians we have sent to Washington have, without fail, simply expanded the role of government and squandered our tax dollars on programs which encourage dependence upon the government.  Well, the day of reckoning is coming and those seeking the highest office are absolutely unwilling to speak to the American people with candor.   Rather, they continue to give us the status quo and simply allow the problem to grow like a cancer eating away at the very future of our nation.

At best we have a political class which is too inept to face the challenge and childishly chooses to hide from the problem in the hopes that some future generation will solve it for them.  At worst we are facing a political class which has become fat with the ambition for power, who sees the coming crisis as an opportunity to secure greater control over the population.  This second possibility is all the more dangerous when faced with the changes to our law enforcement apparatus made to fight our "war on terror".  With these new laws going onto the books, like the Patriot Act and H.R 1955, we are facing an increasingly ominous strangle hold on political dissent. 

The Bush administration has become a pariah, a sort of universally recognized evil for the public to focus its political rage.  The invasion of Iraq and the perceived loss of civil liberties has gained the attention of the public. They are eager for change and yet I question whether we will really get change given the current state of the system.   The primary season is drawing to a close and the two dominating parties are close to finalizing their nominations for president and yet the only candidates that rise to the top of the political heap offer us no real choice, only the same old tired sound bites and policies.

The hatred of the current administration has provided the backdrop upon which Barack Obama has been projected with a sort of messianic glory.   People so desperate for change, so hungry for a different direction think that he has walked onto the political stage as a savior.   But, is he really offering us change that will save us from the looming financial collapse?   Is he really offering us a more humble foreign policy with military designed to protect the people of the United States rather than one designed to maintain an empire that benefits the large multi-national corporations for whom national interests are of little consequence?   

Let us first look at the issue of our looming financial crisis.   Our current Social Security and Medicare programs are faced with a $50 Trillion future liability, which is today completely unfunded.   Yet, Obama wants to add to this unfunded mountain of future liabilities by creating yet another entitlement program in the form of universal health care.   Obama's belief is that government can intervene to force medical providers to provide better more cost effective care.   What exactly does that mean and how is this going to be done?   According to documentation on his website he plans to mandate that hospitals and providers prove that they provide quality care.  He says this can be done by linking a providers payment with reported quality.   This will require a whole new crop of government bureaucrats, the prospect of which does not bode well for reducing costs.   Beyond the cost incurred by this expansion of the government his plan is going to require an expansion in hospital staff needed to collect this mandated data.   In the end his plan is full of promise and light on details, especially when it comes to cost.  In his book, The Revolution, Ron Paul eloquently outlines the stark nature of this coming crisis in Social Security and Medicaid.

David Walker, the comptroller general at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, tells us that Social Security and Medicare are headed for disaster because of demographic trends and rising health care costs.   The number of younger taxpayers for each older retiree will continue to decline.  The demand for "free" prescription drugs under Medicare will explode.   If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare. Fort percent of our entire private-sector output will need to go to just these two programs.  The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60 percent, or doubling federal taxes.  Furthermore, Walker asserts, we cannot grow our way out of this problem.  Faster economic growth can only delay the inevitable hard choices.  To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.

Faced with this situation how can Obama in good conscience make the promises he is making?   His goals are nothing more than empty promises that, if anything, will only hasten the coming crisis without offering us any chance of really solving the problem. Obama talks about paying for the new program in part through the repeal of the tax cuts which will have a negative impact on the economy and will fall short of paying for this grand new plan, let alone even provide a drop in the bucket towards funding our future liabilities in Social Security and Medicaid.  But, perhaps Obama wants to help pay for this new system through a reduced military presence abroad?   

Not based on his discussion of his foreign policy aspirations outlined on his website. In a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Barack Obama said

No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.

This indicates that he is not against using our military in the exercise of maintaining our overseas empire.  I have seen no indication that he would save tax payer money by removing the troops we have scattered around the globe in 130 countries.   Obama talks about creating a military force for the 21st century but is oddly silent on the subject of continuing to pay for this global military presence.   Beyond the matter of our military expenditures abroad, it would seem the matter of the $2.6 Billion in economic and military aid to Israel is another sacred cow which he would be unwilling to touch.  On his website under foreign policy his campaign says:

Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

Continuing to pump military aid to the most technologically advanced nation in the Middle East, one who reportedly has over 200 nuclear warheads and the missile technology to deliver them anywhere in the region, hardly seems the way to bring about a peaceful solution to the never ending battle between Israel and her neighbors.  Israel is perfectly capable of defending herself, and if faced with the loss of this $2.6 Billion in foreign aid might be more willing to find a solution to the issues she faces with the Palestinians.  Beyond the financial impact this support has on our budget, it weakens our ability to act as a diplomatic broker for peace in the region and is an inappropriate transfer of the fruits of hard working American labor and to what gain? 

As much as I would like to say Obama is an agent of change he is not.   He is more of the same tired political rhetoric of the past to which he mixes in a dash of hope by talking about extracting us from the mess in Iraq, removing all combat troops from the country within 16 months of his taking office.  While that sounds promising I find him wanting when it comes to the larger issues of returning us to a sound foreign policy advocated by our founding fathers.   Add to this the fact that he is unwilling to address the even greater danger of the coming financil meltdown in Social Security and Medicare, and I find my self asking why is he so keen to say "Yes we can"?

New Video Feature on Flickr

Well, video finally came to Flickr and I must say it has been well done. Despite the protests being waged by the purist who say Flickr should be nothing more than a photo repository I can't find any real problem with what they have done. It has added an interesting element to the community and in no way interfered with the mission of allowing you to share and explore photos. They allow you to upload up to 90 seconds of video, you can upload longer files but it will be cut off at 90 seconds. To me this seems perfect.

So, I say viva la video! Thanks Flickr for another great feature!

Delete Me Uncensored Video Bookmarklets

Save and delete bookmarklets for DMU Video group.

• Delete - Video
• Save - Video

Reichstag of America

We stand nearly seven years in the shadow of the greatest act of terrorism in American history.   The events of September 11, 2001 have forever altered the psyche of the American people and been used as an excuse for a reckless and dangerous foreign policy.   Once Al Qaeda was identified as the source of the attack we embarked upon an invasion of Afghanistan with the stated goal of capturing the perpetrators.   This goal was quickly replaced with a nation building exercise which had more to do with the interests the oil and gas industry than it did to capturing terrorists.   It is clear from congressional records that instilling a government compliant to U.S Oil and Gas companies was an important consideration in the execution hostilities with in Afghanistan.   On February 12, 1998 John J. Maresca gave the following testimony before Congress.

The key question then is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to  nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions, with several variations. One option is to go east  across China, but this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers just to reach Central  China. In addition, there would have to be a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers  along the coast. The question then is what will be the cost of transporting oil through this pipeline, and  what would be the netback which the producers would receive.

For those who are not familiar with the  terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the well head after  all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it's the price he receives for the oil he produces at the  well head.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One  obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions  legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique  challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across  Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments,  lenders, and our company.

Now, that testimony does not prove that our government's foreign policy decisions three years after the 9/11 tragedy were directed by a desire to build a pipeline across Afghanistan.  I do however believe it gives us a context within which we can evaluate the way the Bush administration executed the war.  Almost from day one the goal of capturing Bin Laden was put on the back burner.   The primary focus became building a new nation at the expense of actually capturing the people responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.   Rather than pressing the advantage in Tora Bora we allowed him to slip away into Pakistan, where we relied upon the dubious support of Perez Musharraf.  We showered his government with money to no avail.   But then again, it seems that capturing Bin Laden was really not a priority with those who create American foreign policy.   Once we had a modicum of stability within Afghanistan we turned our attention to invading Iraq.  A country which had been the focus of one of the most intense weapons inspection regimes of all times.   Fortunately for those directing American foreign policy Saddam Hussein was the perfect kind of mad man.   A man who loved big talk and pretend he had a program for building weapons of mass destruction.   According to a publication from 2002, What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations Scott Ritter had the following to say.

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.

It is fashionable these days to bash the current administration for what has become an ever more unpopular war.   The Democratic party is very happy to demonize the Republican candidates running for president.  But this glosses over the fact that they had their own hand in the formulation and execution of our foreign policy in the years since 9/11.   They provided their approval for the invasion of Iraq.   As much as they would like the American people to think that they are the party of change they are really the party of more of the same.  Obama has made references to wanting to use American forces in Pakistan.   Hillary Clinton, who voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq, says she is willing to continue the policy of isolating Iran by refusing to even talk to that regime.   How can we hope to have diplomacy if we won't even talk?   Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who is advocating a new direction for American foreign policy.   In an MTV question and answer session Ron Paul put forward the notion that a foreign policy which truly favored diplomacy would require us to talk with Iran.  It would require that we not isolate the regime through sanctions, sanctions that only hurt the people of Iran and provide that repressive regime with an external enemy against which the oppressed can focus their anger.   

It is a shame that the loss of life on that tragic day in September seven years ago has become a the American Reichstag.   The events of September 11th were sparked by the intrusive foreign policy decisions made over the course of many decades in an effort to build and maintain an empire.  Our government has twisted that horrific day into a rallying point to distract the focus of the people and gain their consent to send their young men and women to fight and die in foreign lands.  To gain their consent to continue policies which led to the hatred that allowed 19 men from Saudi Arabia to board planes with the intent to kill as many civilians as possible.   Nothing we have done in the last 7 years has made us any safer from the threat of terrorism.   In my opinion Ron Paul is the only candidate who offers us a fresh option for a humble and sane foreign policy which will make us safer.