Dear President-Elect Obama,

We at TSN! congratulate you on your inclusive and innovative victory. We believe that you have vision and drive to make the country more prosperous, peaceful and egalitarian. We encourage you to strongly pursue those ideals. America’s current challenges present a historic opportunity to build a 21^st century economy and foreign policy agenda. This country remains the most dynamic and diverse on the planet and your victory has reminded the world that America is still capable of inspiring optimism and hope.

But our obstacles are huge and despite recent events many people remain opposed to change. For instance since the end of the Cold War, our foreign policy has too often served the needs of our energy markets. The aggressive War-On-Terror has not changed this and our strategic choices in the Middle East, Africa, Northern Europe and South America remain based on access to oil and gas.

We believe that America can produce all the energy we need from a combination of local and renewable sources. Ten years from today the US should not have to import any oil from the Middle East. This achievement will leave us free to make vastly different foreign policy choices, and provide us with a chance to usher in a new phase of human governance. Setting this goal now will allow us to refashion our policies to begin creating that future today.

Because we can produce our own energy, our Middle East policy can now start from a vision of a stable, peaceful and just Middle East that includes Israel but lacks US warships and soldiers. This simple ideal can form the basis of an international framework against which all actions can be judged. Aggression or hatred from any country can be identified and censored as the world community raises expectations of Middle Eastern governments. Every nation does not need to be democratic but they must treat their people according to international standards and live peacefully with all their neighbors.

Our goal in the region will be to complete our nation building projects, stop buying oil and find someone else to police those waters. Europe and Asia buy more oil from that region yet only the American people pay to keep the shipping lanes secure. This does not serve us, the region or the world. Long term security should be handled by the regional powers, perhaps in a Middle Eastern version of NATO. After all, their need to sell their carbon fuels is greater than our need to buy them, for we can find other fuels sources easier than most of them can transform their educational and economic systems.

A first step in building this future is to imagine different relationships with some of these countries. Of course, we cannot just forget history. But if we want to stop spending our hard earned money to send our children to die protecting corrupt, venial and violent governments, we have to first imagine that the region can build stable governments, diverse economies and once again make positive contributions to the world.

For instance:

• Iran sits between Iraq and Afghanistan and has already played positive and negative roles in both conflicts. Guaranteeing Iran’s security will go a long way towards encouraging Ayatollah Khameni to help us stabilize the region. Iran is power hungry but not suicidal. They want the world community to recognize their influence and in return for the right fawning, they will give up their nukes and stop funding terrorists. And what option do we have? Every military leader asks us not to commit troops to combat unless we have a clear, achievable objective with an identified exit strategy. Do we really want to ignite another long directionless war just to bomb nuclear facilities that are in unknown underground bunkers beneath the range of our weapons?
• Saudi Arabia supplies us with a great deal of oil and helps stabilize global oil markets. But they also provide the majority of radical Islamists funding and propaganda. This country exports more teachers of violence and hatred that any other nation in history. They target poor population and foster hatred and fund tactical abilities in Muslim communities around the globe. Some estimates run as high at 90% of terrorist funding comes from Saudi Arabia. The Sunni insurgents who have killed most of our soldiers in Iraq were funded by Saudi Arabia, yet America can’t criticize our ‘friend’. The Saudi Royal Family is tied to the radical religious forces and to stay in power, the Royal Family must support their wars. We can now be honest about this and acknowledge that their cheap oil is not worth their support of  terrorism.
• Pakistan is the major force destabilizing Afghanistan. The Taliban is their proxy and they promised to stand down while we destroyed the Taliban as long as we did not put the Northern Alliance in power (the Iranian and Russian backed factions). Of course, we beat the Taliban. But the day we failed to stop the Northern Alliance from inhabiting Kabul is the day we started fighting Pakistan. This area is a mess. It will not be easy to fix but we can start by working with Russia and Iran and realize that we are presently sending arms and money to the very country we are fighting.
• Israel is an important ally who we will continue to support but that support does not mean that we must follow the dictates Israelis most hawkish, militaristic citizens. There are many strong Israeli voices for compromise and peace. The United States should draw on the full range of Israeli perspectives to have open and honest discussions about the best way forward. We must work with Israeli visionaries instead of only the militants.

America can remove the target from our back. The military has done an admirable job fighting the enemy and they will continue to play an important role. But only removing the source of anger will complete this job. Our policy choices have been based on oil, rather than security. We have a historic opportunity to step back and think about what will make us truly secure.

We must remove our influence in the Middle East (oil money and military) in a way that leaves behind vibrant, self-determined nations. In other words, we need to complete President Roosevelt’s vision of a post-WWII world. A first step will mean overcoming the naysayers in our own country. Republican Americans are not the problem – many will be on our side – it is big oil and big gun companies and the amount they will spend to keep their faces in the trough.

The oil companies and the Wall Street fat boys they fund will shriek “financial ruin!” The arms companies and the soft politicians they fund will pound “weakness and defeat!” But they are all on the wrong side of history and don’t understand true prosperity or strength.

State craft is the opposite of weakness. Peace requires the courage and conviction of a Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Martin Luther or Jesus himself. No general can compare. When any ‘leader’ claims otherwise, ask to see her tax return – for there the lies will be revealed.

President Obama, you will be able to prevail against the American forces of status quo if you have the vocal support of the people who elected you. If we, the people, have the courage to fight for our convictions, if you have us at your back chanting, praying, voting and investing in our common future – then we can build a new world.

We at TSN! pledge our support.  We will do all we can to have your back.

Senator McCain was speaking in the heat of a debate and should be given a chance to adjust his statement, but telling the nation that our energy problems can be addressed by building more nuclear power plants is wrong and diversionary.  Of course, the Senator says gave the same “all of the above” blather that comes out of every politician’s mouth these days.

This is better than the head in sand approach taken for the last decade.  At least politicians are starting to pay attention to our growing energy / environmental crisis. Everyone seems to get that we need to make real changes if our economy is going to recover and stay strong into this century.  But the devils are in the details.

Republicans and Democrats are going to tell us that the “government isn’t in the business of picking winners.” Oh, except for when we build the railroads, the highways, state and local roads, sea ports, airports, nuclear power plants, and provide land, research money, military and diplomatic cover for the oil industry.  The government has ALWAYS picked winners and losers and it always will.

Any politician who says otherwise is just working for the old fashion winners who we picked so long ago that we all forgot.  Oil, gas and coal did us a plenty of good but their  time is over.  Time for a new champion and it is us, the people of the United States who get to pick – not the oil companies or the politicians squawking in their pockets.

With some simple policy adjustments, we could create a much more competitive market place that will unleash the pent up creative energy of this country.  We have so many people with good energy technologies and business plans.  If we give them a chance to compete, if we pick the 21st century, if we pick the future, there is no limit to how much we can achieve.

But if we just keeping picking the same old cronies (oil, gas, coal and nukes), then we can expect to keep sending our wealth to Canada, England, Mexico and Saudi Arabia.  It is our choice and we make it next month.  The truth is that neither candidate has been specific about how they will foster innovation.

Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade are two very workable ideas that have kicked around for a long time. Both would work.  We saw cap and trade work with Acid Rain.  Carbon Tax is transforming the European energy markets as we speak.  This is not a hard thing to wrap your mind around and yet neither candidate says anything about, nor does our oil fed media.

Once again, it is up to us.  Write the candidate of your choice and ask them what policies that will endorse to reshape our 20th century energy market to meet the challenges of the coming years.  And remember that the government always picks winners.  The currents winners did a great job. They helped us build a great nation economy and vast wealth, but like old ball players, they have lost a step and no longer see the ball well.  It is time for big change.

Jay Nordlinger wrote an opinion piece in the Post last week gently dismissing Scott McClellan’s criticism of the Bush Administration. Harbinger thinks that the US media was tough on the President and that the President is a steadfast decision maker who treasures vigorous debate.

But the rose-colored opinion I found the most funny was Harbinger’s idea that the war in Iraq was necessary. The reason why? WMD, of course, and the possibility that Saddam would someday build some and then someday after that give them to the very people he hated.

If Nordlinger had the guts to discuss oil, water or the pressing need to get our troops out of the Saudi desert, he might be worth reading. But he completes his Pravda-style reasoning by telling us not to worry – be happy – everything will work out in the end. Someday the Middle East will someday build monuments to President Bush.

Thanks, Mr. American Enterprise. Glad to know that creating the worlds’ largest Al Qaeda University will work out in the end. But should we trust Mr. Nordlinger? How can we tell if history’s “final call” will really see this long dehumanizing struggle as worth it?

Perhaps if we imagine what kind of a monument a Middle Eastern country would build for past US Presidents, we will have a better idea of what type of monument President Bush can expect? And because so many of this country’s armchair freedom fighters advocate war with Iran, I thought it would instructive to have Iran build them.

The monument begins FDR for our success in WWII gave us such great opportunities in the Middle East that in many ways our relationship begins there.

• FDR on the Augusta signing an oil deal with Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud while tossing overboard The Right to Self Determination.

• Truman, the businessman making a 50%-50% deal with smiling Saudis Sheiks while mini-Churchill retains his 95% – 5% deal by pressing his foot harder into the neck of angry Iranians.

• Eisenhower pushes Iranian statue of liberty into a pit, (or other image of destroying Iranian democracy) while mini-Churchill cheers him on.

• Kennedy smiles and waves to the Arabs while handing a pistol to Israel behind his back. From his feet begins a river that will flow past all succeeding presidents representing the amount of arms funding given to Israel.

• Blind Joe or See Nothing Johnson stands with his back to the growing river of arms covering both his eyes (or playing with Vietnam) as Israel attacks an American Navy ship, its neighbors and builds nuclear weapons.

• Nixon echoes Kennedy’s statue. He smiles and waves at the Arabs with one hand while pushing a massive pile of missiles, tanks and jets over to Israel with the other. The river of weapons widens fast.

• Carter doesn’t know what to do. He faces the growing river and throws up his hands as the Shaw enters the US, our embassy is stormed and our helicopters crash in the desert.

• A terrified Regan runs screaming from Beirut explosions straight into the waiting arms of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Two more rivers of armaments flow out from his feet.

• George Bush I actually defends Kuwait, stops the rivers flowing out of Regan’s feet and strangles Iraq.

• Clinton echoes Carter. He has the smile of Kennedy but throws us his hands as Arafat, Rabin, Rafsanjani, Netanyahu, Saddam Hussein and King Hussein all yell at the same time and point at each other.

• George Bush II – A question mark that we leave open to suggestions for our readers.

This seemingly innocuous economic news could have huge implications for American security. One of the overlooked factor leading to 9/11 is the poverty and hardship across Saudi Arabia and Yemen (countries of origin for the nineteen attackers). We should remember that before 9/11 the price of oil had been very low for years and people country that depends on the handout of oil proceeds was hurting.

Prices spiked immediately after 9/11 allowing for cash payments to stretch much deeper in Saudi Arabia buying off a great deal of anger. It has been an unsaid success of the Bush Administration keeping prices high to keep the fanatics (many assume they should get paid to pray) happy.

But if prices have reached so high that inflation is throwing the system out of whack, we could see anger rising and the US is likely to bear the brunt of their resentment. We have been kept safe by removing our military from Saudi Arabia and the high price of oil. The first is safe as we are not going back into Saudi Arabia stirring up that hornets nest of anger, but we need to find a solution for the economic problems as well.

Two years ago, TSN! asked the media to give the American people an accounting of the Iraqi oil sales. Since then the Iraqi Constitution guaranteed foreign companies a major role in the industry. Despite American and English involvement, smuggling has continued unabated and the graft sends petrol dollars streaming to the insurgents, which means some of the money meant to rebuild the country has been and is being used to kill Americans.

With the Bush Administration now intimating we must remain in Iraq to ensure a stable supply of oil and with the price per barrel soaring, our national interest in the subject grows even stronger. This is the money that is supposed to rebuild the country, make it possible for us to leave and even pay us back the some the billions we’ve spent.

Yet no public accounting of the money or the graft is forthcoming.

Why doesn’t CNN demand the books open? Doesn’t FOX care that the stolen money kills our men and women? Isn’t the Wall Street Journal interested in the flow of billions? The media silence on this issue has been complete and long standing. The Administration promised to be open about the oil money. Four and half years later, nothing is said and our highly paid journalists ask nothing. The truth is long past due.

The Democrats have a great opportunity to stand tall and lead the country with a clear vision of a bright future. And it starts with refusing to drop the renewable provisions from the new energy bill. The issue is too important to our economy, our security and our future.

This energy bill is the first step in building the next economy, we can’t afford to wait any longer. We either start investing in the new tools needed to build the our further, or we trust the old payoffs to keep working. We trust the big oil companies to keep finding new sources of oil and us to find ways to pay for it.
Democrats must to fight to save both the increased CAFÉ standards and the renewable electricity standards. For how can any of them run on the environment and renewable energy if they let this drift by with a large public struggle? This is about a commitment to leadership and the time to act is now:

1. The industry will productively use the help
2. The country is ready for the idea
3. This is the last energy bill before the election

Read the rest of this entry »

So Tehran responded with a not-so-subtle threat yesterday.

“If we are referred to the Security Council, problems might occur for others as well as us,” Ali Larijani said at a news conference. “We would not like to use our oil as a weapon. We would not like to make other countries suffer.”

Um. Here we are. Oil. National Security. Which will win? There is another way… And will anyone ask about the inevitable convergence of capitalism and defense? Wait… this sounds like the port debate!?

Recently we got to thinking on what it means to secure America now and in the future. And few thoughts popped into out heads. The main issue in the Middle East is oil. Obviously. We don’t seem to be sending 150,000 troops into Sudan? And we sure didn’t seem to find the need to end tyranny in Rwanda? People like Osama bin Laden and regimes like Iran hate the US and spend millions on recruiting, training and arming terrorists. And the money that is used is based on oil profits. You see where we are going…

If we truly wanted to secure America we would start today with funding alternative fuels. We know, we know… hippy talk, but what if we spend $6 billion a month on hydrogen fuel? Why $6 billion? Because that is what we are currently spending on the war in Iraq – which shows that we can “afford” the cost if we wish.

Once we solved the issues with the hydrogen cars themselves, we moved to building the infrastructure in the US: pumps, relay stations, etc. Then we, as a nation, would have hydrogen pumps all through America that sold clean, cheap hydrogen.

But we don’t stop there: we then go to Europe, China, and India and build the same infrastructure since estimates show that India and China will overtake our needs for oil within the next twenty to thirty years. We share the cost with the other nations because it is in our interest. But how long will it take at $6 billion a month? 5 years? 10? Because it seems that once we no longer need the oil, the revenues will dry up, once the revenues dry up, the funding dries up.

Like many problems in America, we don’t like to look at the source, but don’t we think it has something to do with capitalism? Money? It is sickening to think that the security of the American people might somehow be compromised for profits, contributions and the “free markets” that drive this great nation.

Alternative fuels have been playing against a stacked house for years. When a report is done talking about how wind or solar is too expensive per kilowatt they always use oil as the benchmark for cheapness. Well keep this in mind: the US (thus you since you pay the bills) subsidized the oil industry approximately $23 Billion annually for security. Billion. So not only do you pay at the pump, you also get to pay in taxes for the oil industry to move their product in tankers around the world. With other subsidies the total is closer to $35 Billion. (Don’t get us wrong, security is needed for this product but why are YOU paying for it not the oild companies?) When true cost is discussed, oil is quite expensive.

From the outside, look at this problem: the world is running out of oil; a majority lies in countries that fund terrorists (Iran, Iraq with Saddam, Saudi Arabia, etc); terrorists want to rid us. It seems pretty cut and dry. We need to find a new fuel. And even if you take out the terrorist funding from the equation, we are running out of oil. But amazingly when the government talks about becoming more sovereign, the solution is drilling. If we truly want to keep America safe, if we truly want to do the patriotic thing, we should be flooding money into alternative fuels.

You say hydrogen isn’t the best? Great, go find it. Scientific American just published a piece (pdf) on fast-neutron reactors that extract more entergy from recycled fuel. It minimizes the risk, leaves less waste and in completely underground. It definitely got us to reconsider nuclear energy as a solution. But drilling is only a stopgap. So we find a few billion barrels of oil somewhere – it is not the long term answer. And just because adding ANWAR reduces imports to 45% compared to the current 56% does not mean that those countries in the Middle East will have no one to sell to. This is why we need to help other countries with their development of alternative fuels. We have done this before, think back to Europe and Japan after WWII. Why did we help rebuild? Because we as a nation knew it was in our best interest to help Europe and Japan. A strong Europe meant a strong USA.

Our country, our way of life is dependent on this fuel. Without it our economy fails. No one is arguing that. And at this point the Middle East is what it is. But looking forward, learning from our history and mistakes, are we actually going to just blindly do the same things again? Do we really think this is about something more than oil? We have to have it. But it is up to us how long we have to have it.

The US has precedent for spending money and resources to secure America: Space race and the Manhattan Project come to mind. This isn’t about the ability to do it; it is about the will to do it.

So while the President and Congress decide how to make the tax cuts permanent, which benefits to cut to the poor, providing tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies after Katrina, bridges to nowhere in Alaska, no unified communications system four years after 9/11, soldier in Iraq still needing armor for their trucks, keep in mind this is a question of desire and will. Why isn’t anyone asking questions like this? Why aren’t conservatives asking why we are not protecting our country better? Why aren’t liberals asking why profits win over lives? Why isn’t the middle class asking why their children’s lives are not as important as corporate profits? And when politicians, republican and democrat, talk about fuel, oil or even security why can’t the media do some research and ask direct questions?

The media needs to step up. Hell we all need to step up.

A report by the International Center for Technology Assessment tallied the known subsidies for the gasoline.

The New Yorker has a similar discussion here.

The New York Times Editorial on the State of the Union “energy” commitment.

Also here are some interesting facts about the oil industry.

TSN! has asked before and we ask again – where is the cash for five years of Iraq oil sales? Thanks for the progress report boom - where the hell is the money anyway?

Two years ago our government said oil would pay for relief. What became of that income? Shouldn’t the government explain where this money is going? What happened with the investigations into corruption at the Oil Ministry? This is the money that will bring success for Iraqi and pay Americans back for our financial investment.

No amount of money will ever repay our human investment but we should at least know that our most important and precious resource is leading to financial and political stability.