Open letter to President Obama about Standing Rock

The current attacks on Standing Rock Protests are being shot at by the Army Corps of Engineers right now. This is a violation of the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux and allies. The construction of the pipeline across native land which was illegally stolen from the Standing Rock is a violation of their treaty rights and our constitution. Treaties signed under the United States are laws under our constitution Article 1, and the Army Corps of Engineers is being improper in their current action. Our constitution and the courts exist for a reason, to prevent massacres which are happening right now. Please use your action to block the Dakota Access pipeline to the best of your ability right now and save the lands of these people. I know that you were raised UU like me and I frequently see you refer to the values your mother raised you with. What would she and your grandmother say today if they saw you stand idle as the rights of Native People are being infringed by the Army Corps of Engineers. I know that our church has come out in opposition to the current actions against Standing Rock protesters and that you know better. You have the power to stop them. Do it.

Water

The Economist wrote another excellent article this week about how water is used across the world. It makes the case very clear that water management is a vital issue which is not getting nearly enough attention, and water reclamation strategies and other methods to maintain our global water supply are needed.

There are numerous ways we can fight water waste. The first thing I think we can do right now is price water appropriately. There are the concerns of spiking water bills which could hurt poor people (if we do it wrong), and there is merit to such concerns. I personally see this as like other important environmental issues, like how to manage global warming, and figuring out how to manage our resources best. When water is too cheap people have fewer incentives to save water, which means we deplete our aquifers faster than we should. People are less likely to fix breaks in their line when it is less expensive, and will take longer to fix the problem. People are also less likely to purchase low-water use toilets. Not having these policies in place creates waste and depletes our aquifers. The EPA has excellent information on water conservation and how to save money at home. The increase in price can easily be offset and more through a universal basic income to raise people out of poverty and the combination of these policies will make it so people can make better decisions about how we consume resources.

The second way we can reduce waste stems from the increased price of my first point. Having water be more expensive will force heavy water users, in the agriculture and electric power industries, to implement methods to reduce their consumption. Catching runoff from farms is an efficient method to preserve our water supply. This will help our aquifers last in the long run.

Third, reducing our use of coal powered plants and other dirty fuels will help reduce water consumption. 41.5% of American water consumption is currently for such uses. There is literally no reason to keep using coal plants in the United States. They are destroying our air quality, heating our planet, and squandering our water supplies. We can fight both global warming and preserve waterat the same time by shutting these plants down. We need to switch to a fully renewable economy as soon as possible.

Fourth, we currently waste a gigantic amount of water by letting our sewage run off into the ocean. Sewage can be recycled to the point where it is safe to drink by people again. The water after being sanitized is as safe as coming from an aquifer and creates a more closed loop to reduce water consumption. New York alone dumps 1.3 billion gallons of treated wastewater into the ocean per day. (Finding a total amount for the entire US or even the world is challenging.) This should be reused to maintain our aquifers.

Fifth, catching rainwater in cities (I live in Seattle, so this is a huge amount for us) and recycling it into our pipes is an efficient way to gather water which does not deplete our aquifer. Houses can do this as well, using the water from the rain to fill their hot water tanks, further reducing demand on aquifers. For people who live in the country where water is from private wells this is a significant amount.

The last big way I can think of reducing water consumption is at home. Homes use 8.5% of water taken from aquifers, the third largest source after agriculture and fossil fuel power plants. First of all, heating homes can be done more efficiently through heated floors which are more comfortable and keep houses at a constant temperature throughout the day. Heated Floors which are heated from wastewater from sinks and tubs. It will be a closed system which keeps using the same water until some is used for toilets. Toilet water will be from the water which is used from the heated floors. Water would leave the system at the toilet. Such a system would drastically reduce water consumption.

The United States has made an incredible amount of progress over the last 50 years with treating sewage before dumping it into the ocean, and this must be recognized. There is however still a lot of work to do in order to protect our environment. Fighting the consumption of fossil fuels is of course a top priority, but reducing consumption of water is also extremely important. With good policy and public pressure on our governments from the city to federal level, and across the world, we can preserve our water use for future generations and keep our planet habitable.

United we stand, Divided we Fall

Another selfish act in Brussels was committed yesterday when 34 people were killed in the Brussels airport and main train station yesterday. In response to this there have been talks about further restricting the ability of Europeans to travel, and other restrictions on civil liberties. They claim that this is going to restrict the ability of terrorists to attack Europeans. The media has been using this like they did the actions in Paris to call for the same restrictions on freedom which have started to pop up all over Europe.

The problem is, the only people this is going to help are the very terrorist organizations they claim they are trying to stop. As Wikipedia says,

The el-Bakraoui brothers were known to the Belgian authorities. Unlike other radicalised ISIL adherents, who started with small criminal offences, the two men had a criminal history of more severe crimes. Khalid (born 12 January 1989 in Brussels) was convicted in 2011 for a series of car-jackings and was released from prison in early 2016 after serving most of his sentence. In January 2010, Ibrahim el-Bakraoui (born 9 October 1986 in Brussels) was involved in the attempted robbery of a currency exchange office, where he shot at police with a Kalashnikov rifle.

Meaning that cutting off refugees from Europe and closing down the borders is not going to help anybody. This war is not a war of invasion by people on the ground, this is an ideological war where the weapon is the internet, and the war is primarily in words. It is not exclusively in words of course, given the conflict in Syria and Iraq, but the weapon of the Wahabbis is the weapon of trying to convince people that not all people are important, freedom of speech is blasphemy, and democracy is against the word of Allah. This of course is wrong, if you look at the vast majority of Muslims around the world who want to have peace (though the Wahabbis would probably claim that since they are not of their perverse movement) and that Islam is very compatible with democracy in multiple countries (Turkey, Lebanon, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and India among others) where over half a million Muslims live in these countries, more than 1/3 of all Muslims worldwide. Most Muslims live in countries like Iran and Egypt which have elections but are not as democratic as the others I mentioned. Only a minority of Muslims in the world live in countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are undemocratic. The calls for closing the border are racist and based off a gross misinterpretation of reality.

Where do we go from here? We need to continue the ideological fight against Wahabbism around the world. We need to grow people to people connections and trade with Muslim majority countries in resources far beyond oil. There is a very unfortunate correlation between Muslim majority countries having a large amount of oil which is demonstrated to be toxic to the economy and political climate of countries given the nature of the market. Middle Eastern countries are where extremism is bred more than any other part of the world, and the dictators of these countries need to fall. The biggest thing we can do now to end this is to reduce our consumption of oil which will starve the dictators of their source of revenue. They will be forced to diversify their economies which will lead to a dispersion of income to all people in the economy. Women will have more jobs available, and opportunity will expand throughout the economy. This will translate into less extremism because people will have futures, and with fewer people living in poverty this is going to reduce the number of people going to terrorist organizations because they will have more to lose. Other countries where terrorism comes from are all poor countries, and by reducing their government's dependence on foreign oil which gives them money to fund their militaries keeping the people from protesting. This is the way to fight terrorism, by cutting off the causes of what drives people to such extreme measures, and by opening up the channels of communication we can have understanding between peoples of the world. We need to build a world with more love and listening as opposed to hatred and closed mindedness.

Our world is one world. What touches one affects us all. The seas that wash us round about. The clouds that cover us. The rains that fall.
From Singing the Living Tradition

Closing the borders on the other hand is the opposite of what we need to do and is only going to make terrorism grow. It is the denial of that reality that we are all part of this world, and our actions affect one another.

http://time.com/3679537/rich-nation-poor-people-saudi-arabia/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35869254

Congress's Choice

I'm really happy about the Iran deal, and looking at the international politics makes it really clear this is the right decision. 1. We are strengthening the President of Iran relative to the Supreme Leader, strengthening Iranian democracy. 2. The government which gave birth to al Qaeda with probably the worst women's rights record in the world which is openly led by the radical perversion of Islam called Wahabbism, this of course being Saudi Arabia, is unhappy. 3. Liberals in Israel are happy and Netanyahu is furious. 4. We are going to have more oil in the market, pushing down prices further hurting the government of the world's largest petrostate, which is Russia. 5. Increasing trade with Iran is going to open economic opportunities for the average Iranian people. (all of the evidence in IPE points in this direction) 6. We are going to have a more open dialogue with Iran, whose President is the only leader in the Muslim world who I have seen consistently uphold values of tolerance and seeking peace over the last decade.

For these reasons, this was definitely the right decision and this will help make the world a safer place where we will have less religious extremism and a more tolerant planet. Sanctions only increase violence and discontent. A basic message of international relations research is that trade and communication are the major bringers of peace in the world, and this decision is going to increase both.

Now it is time for Congress to choose between peace and war, tolerance and intolerance, dialogue and distrust. I hope that enough members of congress will see what is really happening.

The international lobby as well is going to be very stark with Sweden lobbying for increasing trade while the Wahabbi state of Saudi Arabia is going to be lobbying for increasing sanctions. The government of Israel is going to be lobbying against the deal while liberal Israelis are going to be lobbying in favor of the deal. They have a choice between increasing the oil market share of Putin or decreasing the oil market share of Putin. The right answer should be obvious to anyone who looks at the international consequences of this decision. At the bare minimum Iran will open to Europe which will severely hurt the political elite of Russia.

Venezuela-American relations

America's relationship with Venezuela is... complicated. Venezuela currently holds the largest depository of proven oil in the world, and their government doesn't want our oil companies taking their oil, but want to use it for their own national development. This causes tensions, as America's politicians who routinely receive large donations (read bribes) from the oil companies that want to tap the largest proven oil reserve in the world. Venezuela is in a unique position that their late leader Hugo Chavez was a populist, with the goal of protecting Venezuela's natural resources for Venezuelan companies. This caused massive tensions between the government of the United States and Venezuela. Since President Theodore Roosevelt, the United States has mostly pursued an expansionist foreign policy not of military ends, but of economic. When we controlled Cuba under their pre-Castro dictators (let me be clear I am no fan of Castro, he was a dictator by any measure) we had access to large plats of land that we farmed, and controlled our economic interest mostly through military means. Venezuela and the United States have a similar interest in one another, and from the discovery of oil in 1908, which developed strong relations between Venezuela and American oil companies (represented by our government) which for 90 years was a very important source of revenue for our government. In 1943 they set up a 50/50 split with American oil companies which gave immense wealth to both American oil companies and the Venezuelan government.

2001 was a crucial year for the disintegration of Venezuelan-American relations because President Chavez declared all oil in Venezuela property of the state, as in not property of American companies. This means that the American companies that formerly owned and operated oil in Venezuela can't anymore. Oil companies have immense influence in several important ways, first of all they regular give campaign donations to our elected and appointed government officials. (which is often referred to as lobbying, which I personally refer to as bribery) President Bush of course made his fortune in the oil industry, which means that his company and the companies fellow oilmen in his cabinet lead/led (Condoleeza Rice was on the executive board for Chevron, among other high-profile connections) lost billions of dollars in assets in Venezuela with the Venezuelans seeking control over their own economy. This is what turned our relations sour. The second way that oil companies greatly influence our country is through popular perception, and I would bet that they have connections at some level. Corporate America is a very complicated mixture of companies and looking at who is on the boards of directors of different companies I find a lot of people will be on different boards. I didn't find any clear connection between the large companies that own American media (which are News Corporation, Disney, Comcast, and National Amusements) but I did find many connections between them and people on the boards of large financial institutions. Here the skeptical investigator reaches a question... is this enough evidence to become convinced there is a clear conflict of interest between the four large channels and reporting on Venezuela given its complicated connections to the oil industry? Oil is one of the most profitable industries in the world, and if a bank wanted a great industry to make a killing in, a large market would be oil. Looking at the list of people who are on the boards of directors of companies that are available, it is easy to see that many people who lead these massive companies are members of multiple boards, and many investment banks are represented. Looking at large corporations, here is a very small sample of the fortunes of oil in Fortune 500 companies:

1. Berkshire Hathaway has an interest in cheap oil through their subsidiary Lubrizol
2. Chase bank played a big role in financing Enron
3. One needs to look no further than the list of major holders of Exxon Mobil where one can see a number of large banking institutions.

With all of this evidence, it is hard to not be convinced that there is a major conflict of interest between the major news broadcasters regardless of their political alignment and their desire for the largest proven oil reserve in the world... It is quite damning in my opinion. This is enough information for me to conclude that there is enough evidence showing a clear conflict of interest in the foreign reporting of all major corporate American broadcasters.

No wonder American-Venezuelan relations are so poor.

How to bring down oil prices, with no socialism

As I woke up today, I saw a Facebook post from one of my friends complaining how gas prices are too high (as we all are). I then made the connection between oil and banking. The Glass Steagall Act that passed in 1933 separated commercial banks and securities, so that the places where people's money was put to invest was not in a high-risk environment, to prevent the money of ordinary people being lost when investments do not pan out.

We need to do the same thing with oil in America. Currently in oil, companies can produce, distribute, and retail gasoline from well to pump, without ever needing to hire another company in the process. This is dangerous because it raises the costs of entering the market. When Exxon, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips can control the entire process of drilling, distributing, and selling the oil to customers, the costs of entering the market become extremely high. This is a major problem. It is prone to other companies leaving the market, and those are the only oil companies that have large operations in America on the Fortune 500 list, excluding conglomerates like Koch Industries. It means that it is hard to enter the market, which hurts competition, which means they can set the prices anywhere they want.

This hurts the American economy. I propose that like Glass-Steagall we put a regulation on the oil industry to separate the three stages of the oil industry so no company can produce, distribute, and retail the entire process on a drop of oil so it must be moved between companies. This will bring down the costs of entering the market and make it possible for local companies to compete, which will bring down the cost of oil. When there are a lot of different companies working on it.

1. The first level will of course be the producers. These people will drill the oil and then sell it to:
2. The second level who will be the distributors. These people will move the oil around the country and sell it to:
3. The third level who will be the retailers. This is where small Mom and Pop gas stations will be able to set up operations so that there can be real competition.

By having multiple distributors, the producers will sell to the distributor with the lowest price. There will probably be distributors in local regions, competing against larger distributors, and by offering the lowest price to the retailers and competing with other distributors, the price should come down. By changing the economy so that producers can't distribute, it will be possible for small start-ups to start drilling wells in many places, which will create competition, which will bring down the initial price of oil. This means the distributors will purchase from the producers with the lowest price, creating an incentive to bring the price of drilling oil down and keep it down. The retailers will not be owned by one corporation, and will be something that can be extremely local. It will be easier for small gas stations across America to be owned by a single local family to be economically viable. When they buy from the distributors, they will have a lower initial cost and can bring the price of oil down below $2/gallon. Some people will also foresee the coming of an alternative energy economy based on hydrogen (Which is the only alternative fuel for transportation I see real potential in given production costs, distribution, and fueling time. It also works pretty much everywhere.) and put in hydrogen pumps at their stations which will create the infrastructure they need, which will diversify America's energy consumption, and bring down the demand on oil hence the price. Because hydrogen is far more abundant than oil and far easier to get, it will not have the problems that oil has currently of high prices, be able to compete with oil, which will bring down the cost of transportation nationwide, which will bring down the cost of everything else. Not to mention it is also better for the environment!

This is a real economic stimulus for America. Break up the oil companies! We don't trust them. Anti-trust!