One way I like to get a rise out of people when getting into a political discussion between those not of like mind is to assert that 50 years from now Jimmy Carter will be hailed as the best American President of the era encompassing the second half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. Fans of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush find that statement especially galling. 
Now I am quick to add some caveats. I am a partisan Democrat but I do like to be reality based. I don't actually believe Carter was a great President. He really was not all that effective despite coming into office post-Watergate with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Anyone who has read Ted Kennedy's autobiography is familiar with some of the issues Carter had with the Beltway Democrats and why he failed to get along with them to get a lot accomplished.
There is one area though where Carter really shone. And that area becomes increasingly apparent and important with each passing day. His biggest success was in the area of energy policy.
It is the one period of my life where I believe our country actually had a comprehensive energy policy. Much of this was a reaction to the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 and 1974. The embargo was in retaliation for America's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and some of its neighbors, primarily Egypt and Syria. The embargo lead to shortages, long gas lines, price spikes. Jimmy Carter, however, saw it as a wake-up call and opportunity for the nation.
In his plan there was an emphasis to conserve energy complete with inducements and tax credits for private individuals and businesses. Homes and businesses were insulated. Scrubbers were put into smokestacks to recover lost energy and reduce pollution. Gas efficiency standards were increased for vehicles. 
The other side of the policy was to spur domestic development of alternative, sustainable sources of energy. There was a recognition that domestic oil production had peaked and would never achieve the output of the past. There was also a recognition that reliance on fossil fuels carried steep costs in terms of the environment, public health and national security. Relying on oil meant being dependent on foreign oil no matter how much you might "drill, baby, drill". 
The government provided seed money for research projects for solar, wind and geothermal energy. News stories abounded of the efforts and trials, some big, some small, in these areas. Solar panels were even installed on the roof of the White House. 
All of this of course was abruptly halted once Ronald Reagan defeated Carter and assumed the Presidency. Saint Ronnie worshiped the free market and stated that the wisdom of the free market would determine our energy policy, not bureaucrats in Washington. It didn't hurt that OPEC began dropping its prices around this time so that the average person felt less urgency around supporting programs to find alternate fuels. 
The tax incentives for business and individuals to conserve energy were discontinued. The seed money for research and development into alternative energy sources were cut off or severely cut back. Reagan even made a point of removing the solar panels from the White House roof.
This is a classic example of the limits of the free market as a tool for setting policy. Obviously the best long-term interest of the country was to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and develop home-grown clean renewable domestic sources. However, fossil fuels had been the primary energy source for decades, heck close to a hundred years. An entire infrastructure had been developed and was already in place for the production and distribution of fossil fuels whether it be coal, oil or natural gas. On a per unit cost basis there was no comparison at that point, fossil fuels were cheaper and easier. The wisdom of the free market sent us merrily on the path to hell.
So where are we at today? President Obama with his budget and recovery package of 2009 attempted to boost America's position in research and development of renewable energy sources, an area where we are quickly being outpaced by the Germans and Chinese. So almost 30 years after the last big effort at developing alternatives to fossil fuels we see a renewed effort. A lost generation.
Meanwhile all around us we see the impacts of climate change: droughts in some areas, massive flooding in others, disappearing Arctic ice and tundra, disappearing beaches, increased severity of storms, and the list goes on. Water is becoming an ever more precious commodity. And this is only 2013. 
And with Syria in the news lately and the possibility of the United States becoming further entangled in yet another Middle East conflict, we wonder why we are always being dragged into this arena. If we didn't have such a thirst for oil would we be as concerned about Iraq or Iran or Syria or Middle East stability? 
So when the next generation is fighting wars over water, wondering why everyone in the Middle East seems to want to attack us, dealing with the fallout from a radically changing environment and its impacts on agriculture and public health, they may someday open their history books to a discussion of the Carter Administration and sit there dumbstruck. They will at first be amazed and then an anger will well up inside them. 
"You fools! You had the answer! The blueprint was there and in place! And you tore it up and went back to burning fossil fuels like drunken sailors on shore leave! And this is what you left us! Thanks for nothing!"
And we'll see how those generations will rate Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan. 


  
 

Something has been eating at me for a while now. It is not overtly political in nature but certainly speaks to the situation we find ourselves in currently in America.
What has been bugging me is shows such as "Undercover Boss" and "Secret Millionaire". Their existence and popularity strikes me as in indictment of the system we now live in.
For those not familiar I'll attempt to provide a synopsis of the two shows. 
In each episode of "Undercover Boss" we follow the CEO of a company as they don a disguise and masquerade as a front-line worker at their company. They learn first hand the experiences of their ordinary employees, both on the job and in their personal lives. At the end having been made aware of the travails and nobility of at least some of these employees, some suitable largesse is dispensed by the CEO to these deserving folks, once the CEO's true identity is exposed of course to everyone's surprise and amazement. 
Employees who couldn't afford a college education for themselves or their kids are given money to open tuition accounts; or to pay for daycare so they don't have to choose between missing work (and therefore getting paid) to care for a sick child, or leaving the sick child to others to deal with so they can go to work and put food on the table. Real tearjerker stuff.
"Secret Millionaire" follows a similar trajectory. Some person who is very well off assumes a false identity and is dropped into a not so wealthy community. They work and/or volunteer at a number of places. Again they find people struggling with limited means to still make a positive influence in their community. And again at the end of the episode they announce their true identity, the fact that they have been "very fortunate" in their own lives, and then proceed to dispense gifts to the deserving masses. The one episode I viewed the millionaire bought a vehicle for an inner city youth football league and contributed to a coffee shop that raised money for victims of abuse. 
Now don't get me wrong. I'm glad some people who could stand to catch a break had the good fortune to end up on these shows and get some much needed help.
But to me these shows ultimately are not uplifting but disturbing.
Everyone feels good when some average working stiff gets a big boost from their now empathetic and newly aware boss. But nobody asks the basic question these shows raise. Why are these shows necessary in the first place?
If you are a full-time employee working a full-time job, why can't you afford day care? Why isn't daycare more available and affordable for working people? Why aren't people being paid living wages where they could save money to buy cars, or put money aside for education? 
Why are so many communities and individuals struggling to get by without adequate resources? As stated above even those working full-time jobs?
What is wrong with this picture?
But none of those issues will be explored or even tacitly raised on these programs. That would interfere with the positive uplifting vibe of noble, struggling ordinary folks given a lift by the generosity of their "superior".
The other troubling aspect I find to these shows is the whole "bread and circuses" side of it. I know the idea is to entertain to get the viewing numbers and advertising dollars. But it is the implicit message the audience is receiving that bothers me. 
People and communities are doing their best and doing their part, but it's not enough to get by. And somehow that is not seen as a problem. But they are saved eventually thanks to the actions of a rich benefactor, whether that be their boss or a stranger. What's that telling us? That our only salvation is to accept whatever gifts the rich and powerful have found us worthy of? That even though more wealth is being held by so many fewer people than ever before, and corporate profits are at record highs, be satisfied with your lot and maybe if you're good and lucky some boss or rich benefactor will finally see the light and shower you with the gifts you've earned?
Or at the least you can sit on the couch and vicariously thrill to some other poor working stiff or community getting helped. Sure beats working for a better economic and political system that would ensure full-time jobs available for all those willing and able to hold them, and that those jobs would provide enough to actually live on.
Call me a dreamer.

I must be psychic or something. Or a master of the obvious.
In my 8/12 posting I noted that the Obamas were now vacationing on Martha's Vineyard and predicted that even though he has taken only about 1/4 of the vacation days at this point in his administration as George W. Bush had at the same point in his, that we would soon be treated to the annual snide faux outrage of the right wing over the travesty of our "goof off in chief" daring to take time off.
We did not have long to wait.
Sure as shootin' one of our local papers, whose editorial page spouts the same far right wing nonsense heard incessantly on FoxNews, reprinted commentary from a conservative site about Obama's vacation.
The site in question is called Canadian Free Press and is the playground of a Canadian journalist who apparently believes there is no free world without the United States so everyone should worship America. The post even refers to Obama as "our President" .
Basically Obama was compared to Nero who legend has it fiddled while Rome burned. The money quote is "Nero fiddled, Obama golfed."
It noted how Obama has played 133 rounds of golf during his Presidency and here he was at it again while the death toll in Afghanistan approaches 2,300 Americans. Obama is also blamed for the poor economic conditions in the U.S., the growing disparity between rich and poor, and worsening race relations in the country. 
Apparently all of us hard-working Amerkans (you know, "white Americans" wink wink nudge nudge...) are invited to be suitably outraged that this uppity man in the White House dares take vacation and relax while there is any suffering anywhere.
So apparently it was alright for W to take over 300 vacation days (don't know how many rounds of golf and bike rides that included but we've seen the pix, we know it happened). Meanwhile the death toll in Iraq was raising as was our national debt thanks to unpaid for record tax breaks for the wealthy and wars fought on a credit card.  Don't even get me started on how Bush was so anxious to go on one of his bike rides on his first month long vacation (after having been in office seven months mind you) that he blew off the intelligence warning titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." with the curt "okay you've covered your ass" response to the presenter and hit the trails.
And we don't even have to go into how the policies of the Bush administration laid the ground work for the economic disaster we still have not recovered from. Or how he fiddled while a great American city drowned. 
But you know damned well none of these conservative sites or pundits or the paper that reprinted this tripe were complaining then about the time off by Bush or calling it an affront and insult to the rest of us.
I never begrudged any Republican President his time off. Hell the fewer days on the job the better as far as I'm concerned. But as usual the conservatives do not give the same courtesy or respect to Democrats as they insist on for GOP leaders. Which makes them nothing more than partisan hacks and hypocrites.

Many are by now familiar with the acronym which is today's title. "It's OK If You're A Republican".

Jane Fonda playing Nancy Reagan in "The Butler"? Right wing heads exploding in 3...2...1...