Vietnam was my war, my senior trip.  58,000 dead, 304,000 wounded, most by small arms fire, up close, personal and such an adrenalin rush that many Vietnam veterans are hooked to this day.  Our fuses are short and our mood swings are legend, it takes a lot of VA prescription drugs to manage the madness.  No one tells a story like Bill Moyers, it is in his Baptist minister DNA, in the days of Jesus they called him teacher/master/rabbi, enjoy this lesson in history.  BTW, LBJ was not as dumb as he looked or sounded.  The real villains in this story are the Petraeus/Tommy Franks/McChrystal's of yesteryear. MC

Watch and Listen

November 20, 2009
BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal.

Our country wonders this weekend what is on President Obama's mind. He is apparently, about to bring months of deliberation to a close and answer General Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan. When he finally announces how many, why, and at what cost, he will most likely have defined his presidency, for the consequences will be far-reaching and unpredictable. As I read and listen and wait with all of you for answers, I have been thinking about the mind of another president, Lyndon B. Johnson.

I was 30 years old, a White House Assistant, working on politics and domestic policy. I watched and listened as LBJ made his fateful decisions about Vietnam. He had been thrust into office by the murder of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963-- 46 years ago this weekend. And within hours of taking the oath of office was told that the situation in South Vietnam was far worse than he knew.

Less than four weeks before Kennedy's death, the South Vietnamese president had himself been assassinated in a coup by his generals, a coup the Kennedy Administration had encouraged.

South Vietnam was in chaos, and even as President Johnson tried to calm our own grieving country, in those first weeks in office, he received one briefing after another about the deteriorating situation in Southeast Asia.

Lyndon Johnson secretly recorded many of the phone calls and conversations he had in the White House. In this broadcast, you're going to hear excerpts that reveal how he wrestled over what to do in Vietnam. There are hours of tapes and the audio quality is not the best, but I've chosen a few to give you an insight into the mind of one president facing the choice of whether or not to send more and more American soldiers to fight in a far-away and strange place.

Granted, Barack Obama is not Lyndon Johnson, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and this is now, not then. But listen and you will hear echoes and refrains that resonate today.............................................................. BILL MOYERS: "Now in a different world, at a different time, and with a different president, we face the prospect of enlarging a different war. But once again we're fighting in remote provinces against an enemy who can bleed us slowly and wait us out, because he will still be there when we are gone.

Once again, we are caught between warring factions in a country where other foreign powers fail before us. Once again, every setback brings a call for more troops, although no one can say how long they will be there or what it means to win. Once again, the government we are trying to help is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

And once again, a President pushing for critical change at home is being pressured to stop dithering, be tough, show he's got the guts, by sending young people seven thousand miles from home to fight and die, while their own country is coming apart.

And once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it, who will be safely in their beds while the war grinds on. And once again, a small circle of advisers debates the course of action, but one man will make the decision.

We will never know what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson had said no to more war. We know what happened because he said yes."

THE dead at Fort Hood had not even been laid to rest when their massacre became yet another political battle cry for the self-proclaimed patriots of the American right.

Their verdict was unambiguous: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born psychiatrist of Palestinian parentage who sent e-mail to a radical imam, was a terrorist. And he did not act alone. His co-conspirators included our military brass, the Defense Department, the F.B.I., the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and, of course, the liberal media and the Obama administration. All these institutions had failed to heed the warning signs raised by Hasan’s behavior and activities because they are blinded by political correctness toward Muslims, too eager to portray criminals as sympathetic victims of social injustice, and too cowardly to call out evil when it strikes 42 innocents in cold blood.

A bit of war music for Veteran's Day, the dead cry, 'Remember me'  the mothers cry, 'I can't forget'  the nation cries, 'I know not war or sacrifice and we will forget'  MC

Music from "Mansions of the Lord"

The song was sung by the West Point Glee Club at the end of the movie "We Were Soldiers"

"The Mansions of the Lord" 

To fallen soldiers let us sing 
where no rockets fly nor bullets wing 
Our broken brothers let us bring 
to the mansions of the Lord 

No more bleeding no more fight 
No prayers pleading through the night 
just divine embrace, eternal light 
in the mansions of the Lord 

Where no mothers cry and no children weep 
We will stand and guard tho the angels sleep 
All through the ages safely keep the mansions of the Lord 

Words by Randall Wallace

Dispatching more troops to Afghanistan would be a monumental bet and probably a bad one, most likely a waste of lives and resources that might simply empower the Taliban. In particular, one of the most compelling arguments against more troops rests on this stunning trade-off: For the cost of a single additional soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year, we could build roughly 20 schools there.

It’s hard to do the calculation precisely, but for the cost of 40,000 troops over a few years — well, we could just about turn every Afghan into a Ph.D.

The hawks respond: It’s naïve to think that you can sprinkle a bit of education on a war-torn society. It’s impossible to build schools now because the Taliban will blow them up.

In fact, it’s still quite possible to operate schools in Afghanistan — particularly when there’s a strong “buy-in” from the local community.

Greg Mortenson, author of “Three Cups of Tea,” has now built 39 schools in Afghanistan and 92 in Pakistan — and not one has been burned down or closed. The aid organization CARE has 295 schools educating 50,000 girls in Afghanistan, and not a single one has been closed or burned by the Taliban. The Afghan Institute of Learning, another aid group, has 32 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with none closed by the Taliban (although local communities have temporarily suspended three for security reasons).

In short, there is still vast scope for greater investment in education, health and agriculture in Afghanistan. These are extraordinarily cheap and have a better record at stabilizing societies than military solutions, which, in fact, have a pretty dismal record.

In Afghanistan, for example, we have already increased our troop presence by 40,000 troops since the beginning of last year, yet the result has not been the promised stability but only more casualties and a strengthened insurgency. If the last surge of 40,000 troops didn’t help, why will the next one be so different?

Matthew P. Hoh, an American military veteran who was the top civilian officer in Zabul Province, resigned over Afghan policy, as The Washington Post reported this week. Mr. Hoh argues that our military presence is feeding the insurgency, not quelling it.

Already our troops have created a backlash with Kabul University students this week burning President Obama in effigy until police dispersed them with gunshots. The heavier our military footprint, the more resentment — and perhaps the more legitimacy for the Taliban.

Schools are not a quick fix or silver bullet any more than troops are. But we have abundant evidence that they can, over time, transform countries, and in the area near Afghanistan there’s a nice natural experiment in the comparative power of educational versus military tools.

Since 9/11, the United States has spent $15 billion in Pakistan, mostly on military support, and today Pakistan is more unstable than ever. In contrast, Bangladesh, which until 1971 was a part of Pakistan, has focused on education in a way that Pakistan never did. Bangladesh now has more girls in high school than boys. (In contrast, only 3 percent of Pakistani women in the tribal areas are literate.)

Those educated Bangladeshi women joined the labor force, laying the foundation for a garment industry and working in civil society groups like BRAC and Grameen Bank. That led to a virtuous spiral of development, jobs, lower birth rates, education and stability. That’s one reason Al Qaeda is holed up in Pakistan, not in Bangladesh, and it’s a reminder that education can transform societies.

When I travel in Pakistan, I see evidence that one group — Islamic extremists — believes in the transformative power of education. They pay for madrassas that provide free schooling and often free meals for students. They then offer scholarships for the best pupils to study abroad in Wahhabi madrassas before returning to become leaders of their communities. What I don’t see on my trips is similar numbers of American-backed schools. It breaks my heart that we don’t invest in schools as much as medieval, misogynist extremists.

For roughly the same cost as stationing 40,000 troops in Afghanistan for one year, we could educate the great majority of the 75 million children worldwide who, according to Unicef, are not getting even a primary education. We won’t turn them into graduate students, but we can help them achieve literacy. Such a vast global education campaign would reduce poverty, cut birth rates, improve America’s image in the world, promote stability and chip away at extremism.

Education isn’t a panacea, and no policy in Afghanistan is a sure bet. But all in all, the evidence suggests that education can help foster a virtuous cycle that promotes stability and moderation. So instead of sending 40,000 troops more to Afghanistan, how about opening 40,000 schools?

NY Times

• Bradford Plumer
• October 23, 2009 | 12:39 pm

For reasons explained before [1], we'll likely all be driving electric cars long before we ever see mass-market vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells, which was once the great clean-car hope. Still, the fuel-cell approach is obviously worth researching, and now researchers have lit upon [2] a particularly promising fuel source. Oh yes, urine:

Using hydrogen to power cars has become an increasingly attractive transportation fuel, as the only emission produced is water - but a major stumbling block is the lack of a cheap, renewable source of the fuel. Gerardine Botte of Ohio University may now have found the answer, using an electrolytic approach to produce hydrogen from urine—the most abundant waste on Earth—at a fraction of the cost of producing hydrogen from water.

Urine's major constituent is urea, which incorporates four hydrogen atoms per molecule—importantly, less tightly bonded than the hydrogen atoms in water molecules. Botte used electrolysis to break the molecule apart, developing an inexpensive new nickel-based electrode to selectively and efficiently oxidise the urea. To break the molecule down, a voltage of 0.37V needs to be applied across the cell—much less than the 1.23V needed to split water.

Good to know! Meanwhile, there's an opposing school of thought that, while piss-powered cars are awfully promising, we should really be conserving our urine for other, more important ecological purposes:

However, Logan does feel that it would be a good idea to start saving up our urine—although not for the hydrogen. 'You have to remember about the P [phosphorus] in pee—globally we need to start thinking about conserving phosphorus for fertiliser, because, just like oil, one day the deposits are all going to run out and we need to start building phosphorus recycling into our infrastructure,' he says.

More on peak phosphorous here [3].

NY Times

Depending on the cooling technology utilized, the water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations.

Denver Water Consumption

When both reactors at the Susquehanna nuclear plant in Pennsylvania operate in summer,  nearly 30 million gallons of makeup water per day (or nearly 21,000 gallons per minute) are needed from the river to compensate for cooling tower drift.

Colorado Electricity Consumption

44,236 MW = About 37 nuclear reactors = 550 Million gallons of water per day = Over twice the daily consumption of water in Denver.  Cost of one reactor = $6 to $9 Billion = cost of 37 reactors = $333 Billion @ $9 Billion each.  $333 Billion = 41,625,000 rooftop water heaters @ $8000 each.  Hot water for bathing, etc. accounts for 13% of household energy consumption = 5,750 MW = 4.8 nuclear reactors = $43.2 Billion = 5.4 Million rooftop water heaters.

Is nuclear power renewable energy?

Nuclear energy uses Uranium as fuel, which is a scarce resource. The supply of Uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years (depending on the actual demand). Therefore nuclear energy is not a renewable energy.

"— Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s reported recommendation of 40,000 additional troops — is itself counterinsurgency light. In his definitive recent field manual on the subject, Gen. David Petraeus stipulates that real counterinsurgency requires 20 to 25 troops for each thousand residents. That comes out, conservatively, to 640,000 troops for Afghanistan (population, 32 million). Some 535,000 American troops couldn’t achieve a successful counterinsurgency in South Vietnam, which had half Afghanistan’s population and just over a quarter of its land area."

Could $292,000 pay for a college or trade school education, room and board?  Subsidize a young person until they could land a good job?  With the change left over, could it pay to make high school more hospitable to the poor? For public works projects? For more teachers? Research and development?  We ignore the needs of young people at a terrible cost. And yes, it does take a village.  What are the economic effects of 1.2 million high school dropouts per year?  At $7,300 per student, that amounts to $8.76 billion a year, year two adds another 1.2 million students and becomes $17.52 billion, ad infinitum. Can we solve the problem?  Can we afford not to? What can you buy with $8.76 billion?  How about 175,200 teachers at $50 K a pop, that's one teacher for every 7 dropouts.  MC

"The report puts the collective cost to the nation over the working life of each high school dropout at $292,000. Mr. Sum said that figure took into account lost tax revenues, since dropouts earn less and therefore pay less in taxes than high school graduates. It also includes the costs of providing food stamps and other aid to dropouts and of incarcerating those who turn to crime."

The picture is even bleaker for African-Americans, with nearly one in four young black male dropouts incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized on an average day, the study said. That compares with about one in 14 young, male, white, Asian or Hispanic dropouts.

Researchers at Northeastern University used census and other government data to carry out the study, which tracks the employment, workplace, parenting and criminal justice experiences of young high school dropouts.

"We’re trying to show what it means to be a dropout in the 21st century United States," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern, who headed a team of researchers that prepared the report. "It’s one of the country’s costliest problems. The unemployment, the incarceration rates — it’s scary."

A coalition of civil rights and public education advocacy groups and a network of alternative schools in Chicago commissioned the report as part of a push for new educational opportunities for the nation’s 6.2 million high school dropouts.

"The dropout rate is driving the nation’s increasing prison population, and it’s a drag on America’s economic competitiveness," said Marc H. Morial, the former New Orleans mayor who is president of the National Urban League, one of the groups in the coalition that commissioned the report. "This report makes it clear that every American pays a cost when a young person leaves school without a diploma."

The report puts the collective cost to the nation over the working life of each high school dropout at $292,000. Mr. Sum said that figure took into account lost tax revenues, since dropouts earn less and therefore pay less in taxes than high school graduates. It also includes the costs of providing food stamps and other aid to dropouts and of incarcerating those who turn to crime.

Continued at the: NY Times

From the Bob Herbert op/ed, "Igniting the Growth of Jobs"

NY Times

'40,000 teachers lost their jobs in the last year.  16 to 29 year olds, worst unemployment ever since national records have been kept.  One in four black men in Illinois between the ages of 20 and 24 has a job.'

One of the regents of the University of Colorado, Michael Carrigan, told me that Colorado had a return on investment of 40 to 1 for each dollar invested in higher ed. The only figures I could find for Colorado was a 15.07 percent return.  New Jersey leads the nation with 42.32 percent, followed by Massachusetts 39.16, New York 37.82, California 36.53 percent.  All in all a substantial return on investment.  The lowest in the nation, predictably, was Mississippi at 6.49 percent.  Most surprisingly, Indiana is second from the bottom at 7.22 percent

Higher Ed Return on Investment for States

Most significantly, Herbert says this:

""The past," as William Faulkner told us, "is not dead. It’s not even past." The lessons of the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s are right in front of us, ready to be studied, analyzed, updated and applied to the present-day needs of the country."

I hate to say this, but we are a country of nepotism, in our unions, our military, in corporations, in government.  Because of this "inbreeding" and counterproductive behavior, we must import the brightest minds/strongest work ethics from around the world to carry our water and be used as if indentured servants.  It is all a vast pyramid scheme where the unqualified extinguish the flames of the most gifted and reap the rewards off the backs of the timid.  Their only qualification?  Being members of the lucky sperm club.  Here's something the "conservative revision" Bible will surely leave out, "As you have done to the least of these......."  The least very much includes the youthful poor, who have no say in the conditions they find themselves in and obviously don't have the attention of those that have the most.  While we argue about war, healthcare, social justice, gay rights, Obama's Nobel Prize, etc., no one considers our most precious asset nor what should be our greatest legacy to them, "Liberty and Justice for all.."  This is what is great about the idea of America, eloquently pronounced in the Preamble of the Constitution, not just to ourselves but to our Posterity,  the word was capitalized unlike the word "ourselves":

"............We accept that life is unfair, that some people will live in cramped apartments and others in sprawling mansions. But our existing insurance system is not simply inequitable but also lethal: a very recent, peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Public Health finds that nearly 45,000 uninsured people die annually as a consequence of not having insurance. That’s one needless death every 12 minutes.

When nearly 3,000 people were killed on 9/11, we began wars and were willing to devote more than $1 trillion in additional expenses. Yet about the same number of Americans die from our failed insurance system every three weeks.

The obstacle isn’t so much money as priorities. America made it a priority to provide tax breaks, largely to the wealthy, in the Bush years, at a 10-year cost including interest of $2.4 trillion. Allocating less than half that much to assure equal access to health care isn’t deemed an equal priority............."

Complete Op/Ed at The NY Times

"Don't look back, they may be gaining on you." :-))

denver and the west

Romanoff's Senate campaign raises more than $200,000

By The Denver Post

The campaign for U.S. Senate candidate-come-lately Andrew Romanoff said Tuesday that it had raised more than $200,000 in the 21 days he was eligible to collect donations in the third quarter.

Romanoff needed a big start to show he's viable, though he will have to keep up the pace to compete with the fundraising juggernaut of Sen. Michael Bennet, who has taken in $2.5 million and counting since his appointment in January, analysts say.

Romanoff fundraisers collected cash from more than 1,500 individuals, said spokeswoman Joelle Martinez, using that figure to bolster Romanoff's image as the race's grassroots candidate.

Continued at the Denver Post

Great writing and video clips

What "Capitalism" Is Not

By Terrance Heath Created 10/02/2009 - 11:26am

If I were to summarize message Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story in one sentence, it would be this: Capitalism is not a form of government. That's the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the movie, via 1950s educational/propaganda films.

Capitalism is not a form of government. It is a tool we've allowed to be used as a weapon. We threw out the instructions and rules for its usage, and it became a weapon — much like a hammer can be used to build a house or smash a skull, depending on whether it's wielded by a carpenter or a psychopath.

Moore spends the rest of the movie showing us how we not only tossed out the rules, but junked every other tool in our collective toolbox, and left ourselves with the hammer. But everything is not a nail, and the hammer isn't suited to every aspect of the task in front of us. Moore gives us until the end of the movie to figure out what that seemingly abandoned task might be.

Capitalism is populated by people whose names we know and people whose names we don't — all characters in what Michael Moore has subtitled "a love story." We know the speeches of the former, and the stories of the latter, because we've watched those same stories unfold in our own communities in the last couple of years. The speeches were intended to arouse our passions, by retelling part the most recent chapter in the story of how we got here — the part that happened on Wall Street and in Washington.

Continued

Campaign for America's Future

"Democrats have been far too timid in taking on the right wing's arguments against government. They have been defensive when they should be going on offense by insisting that government can expand human freedom and give people options they would not otherwise have."

The Centrist Public Option

By E.J. Dionne Jr. Thursday, October 1, 2009

The strangest aspect of the debate over a public option for health coverage is that the centrists who oppose it should love it.

It doesn't involve a government takeover of the health-care system. The idea is that only consumers who want to enroll in a government-run health plan would do so. Anyone who preferred private insurance could get it.

The public option also uses government exactly as advocates of market economics say it should be deployed: not as a controlling entity but as a nudge toward greater competition. Fans of the market rightly oppose monopolies. But in many places, a small number of insurance companies -- sometimes only one -- dominates the market. The public option is a monopoly-buster.

Centrists tell us they want to hold down spending and fight deficits.

Strong versions of the public option, as the Congressional Budget Office showed in its scoring of Sen. Jay Rockefeller's proposal, cut the costs of insuring everyone.

Unfortunately, the debate over the public option has rarely concentrated on the substance of the idea. Instead, it has been almost entirely ideological.

Because opponents know from polling that the public wants the chance to choose a government plan, they move the discourse to abstract and often demagogic ground. The most revealing "argument" during the Senate Finance Committee's public-option debate on Tuesday came from Sen. Chuck Grassley.

"The government is not a fair competitor," Grassley said. "It's a predator."

Grassley was then forced to explain how he felt about Medicare. Is it predatory for government to pay health bills for the elderly? Is Social Security, which lives side by side with private pension and savings plans, predatory? Is it predatory for government to regulate, well, predatory lenders or stock swindlers or bank boodlers?

Democrats have been far too timid in taking on the right wing's arguments against government. They have been defensive when they should be going on offense by insisting that government can expand human freedom and give people options they would not otherwise have.

Continued at the Washington Post