CARTOON SHOW at Black Dog Cafe and Wine Bar, August 15th-- September 10th

In honor of the upcoming RNC convention, I just put up a show of over 40 political cartoons at Black Dog Cafe in downtown Saint Paul. I am sharing the space with the Minneapolis Poster Offensive, who is showing 30 of its posters. There will be a reception for both shows on Friday, August 29th from 5pm until we all pass out. I will be selling books, original cartoons, sketches and other stuff.

Below are some photos of the show, as I set it up. For more information on the location of Black Dog and the two shows see these two links--
http://www.blackdogstpaul.com/events/news-73.shtml
http://www.blackdogstpaul.com/events/news-13.shtml
Check it out!










THE MINNESOTA DFL PARTY DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT TRANSIT
...and amusing Senator Steve Murphy Doublespeak

(5/7/08, by Andy Singer)

By politicizing the I-35 bridge collapse and blaming it on a lack of road funding, the State Democratic Party (DFL) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) managed to pass 660 million dollars per YEAR in new highway funding over Governor Pawlenty's veto. Of course a lack of funding had nothing to do with the bridge collapse. The real cause of the collapse was that MnDOT put 8 lanes on a bridge designed for 4 (in two separate lane expansions), leading to a failure of gusset plates on the bridge. See the NTSB report-- http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2008/H08_1.pdf

Even if lack of maintenance had been an issue, MnDOT has plenty of money. It simply choses to spend this money on new construction projects and lane expansions rather than on maintenance. This is the conclusion of independent audits by the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Minnesota Legislative Auditor. The Minneapolis Star Tribune said (quote)--
"A 10-year review of spending at the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) shows that money for road and bridge construction has gone up every single year, no matter the state's economic straits. In 1997 the state spent $368 million on road and bridge construction. By 2007, it had soared to $760 million." ..."Compare that with operation and maintenance of said roads and bridges, which stood at $213 million in 1997 and, by 2007, with a few dips and peaks, hit (just) $218 million."
(August 11, 2007 Star Tribune, formerly at--)
http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/mips_mobile_story.php?story=1357484
The Minnesota Legislative Auditor’s report confirmed the Star Tribune account, saying that
“…despite MnDOT's ‘preservation first’ policy, more than half of highway construction spending since 2002 has gone toward system expansion and less toward preservation.”
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/19/transpoaudit/

So all of the DFL's $660 million gas tax increase will probably go towards the construction of new pet highway projects in suburban and rural DFL districts ...or it will free up other money for these projects. To buy off urban DFL legislators, the DFL chair of the Senate Transportation committee, Steve Murphy, agreed to throw in a metro sales tax for transit that will amount to less than $100 million per year (a sixth of what was given to highways). Unfortunately, Governor Pawlenty's veto of $70 million in bonding for the Central Corridor LRT threatens to nullify the new transit funding ...and the DFL is blaming Pawlenty for potentially killing the Central Corridor project.

...But then the DFL then turns around and offers to spend $100 million on a new parking for the Mall of America!!! Hello! In a year or two, nobody is going to use this new parking lot and fewer people will drive to Mall of America as gas may well cost $5 or $6 per gallon. Based on rising gas prices, peak oil and global warming, the legislature should be doing everything it can to create automobile alternatives and help people reduce their driving. Instead the DFL is paying to build more highways and parking spaces. The message is clear-- they've got $100 million for a parking lot but can't find $70 million for Central Corridor LRT. Outside the metro area, the DFL clearly doesn't give a damn about transit ...and if the Central Corridor project fails to get funding, the DFL shares a large part of the blame.

Amusingly, last week, the presidential candidates exchanged barbs over McCain's and Clinton's proposal for a Federal gas tax holiday this summer. Obama rightfully pointed out that the "tax holiday" was a gimmick that would mean very little to average drivers and would cut off funding and jobs for road (and transit) projects. McCain replied, also rightfully, that many of these highway projects amounted to unnecessary legislative pork and diverted money away from maintaining existing roads and bridges. He then went on to (wrongfully) blame a lack of maintenance for the I-35 bridge collapse. Geeze, I wonder if he got that idea from Democrats like Senator Steve Murphy? ...who also blamed the collapse on a lack of funding (back in August of last year), saying that--
"We're going to have to swallow the bitter pill, take the political hit and raise these revenues," Murphy said, adding that another bridge collapse "is a likelihood, and we don’t want that."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291947,00.html
"...years of underfunding our transportation infrastructure has contributed to its degradation. I've called upon our leaders to have the courage to publicly support the increased transportation revenue needed to ensure that our roads and bridges are safe."
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/11150726.html

Afraid of lawsuit liability for the bridge collapse and/or for political reasons, all the Minnesota politicians rushed to criticize or correct McCain's remarks. In a moment of complete reversal and double speak, Steve Murphy said to MPR--

"In no way, shape or form does it look like (the bridge collapse has) been a lack of resources. Now, there may be have been some judgment calls along the way that may have precipitated the collapse of the 35W bridge, but we don't know that, and we certainly can't put our finger on the lack of money."
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/01/pawlenty/

AKKKKKKK!!!!!


 

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SIERRA CLUB BOARD OF DIRECTORS

(4/10/08, by Andy Singer)

Dear Sierra Club Board,

I want to bring an extremely important environmental issue to your attention. It is an issue that the Sierra Club's board has failed to adequately address and I would appreciate your response as to how you might address it. It is a complicated issue to articulate that involves highway building and financing issues, so my letter is long. Please bear with me.

To understand the problem, I first need to give you some background. I will include links to various other sources and articles if you wish to verify what I'm saying or investigate the issue further.

In the United States, the transportation sector is perhaps the biggest source of particulate pollution and greenhouse gases. It is also a major source of water-pollution, species extinction and a host of other environmental problems. For the most part, "transportation" in this country equals "cars". By some estimates, one out of every seven barrels of oil pulled out of the ground around the world is burned up on American highways. To address this, the Sierra Club and most major environmental groups have overwhelmingly focused on three things: 1. increasing "CAFE" (Corporate Average fuel Economy) standards; 2. alternative fuels and; 3. increased emission standards. While this is good, as far as it goes, there are several problems with this approach.

First, environmentally friendly alternatives to gasoline simply don't exist. At the moment, almost all "alternative" fuels create more greenhouse gases and pollution than they save. The corn or other agricultural products used to make ethanol require huge amounts of water, pesticide, fertilizers and mechanical energy to be grown, harvested and processed. According to Michael Pollan and others it takes almost a half-gallon of oil to produce a bushel of corn and more energy to process the mash into ethanol. So the net savings in fuel, greenhouse gas emissions and pollution is almost non-existent. Add to this the upward pressure on food prices and the clearing of land (often rainforest) for planting ethanol crops and ethanol ends up being worse than just burning fossil fuel. Only biofuels that are manufactured from industrial or agricultural waste products can reduce greenhouse gas emissions ...and technology for the mass-production of these is at least a decade from being ready. Also, the quantities of ethanol that can be produced from waste are no where near what is required to meet to current consumption levels. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18784732

Hydrogen is not an energy source but is merely a very inefficient battery, meaning that you must put more energy into it than you get out of it (as compared to traditional electric batteries). Whether the hydrogen is "environmentally friendly" depends on how the energy used to create it is manufactured. Right now the energy is made from nuclear power and coal. Because energy is lost converting the electricity to hydrogen (and back), hydrogen thus produces more greenhouse gases or toxins than fossil fuels. If it is made more efficient and the energy is generated from solar or wind power, then it has potential. But again, this is decades away from happening at a mass-produced scale.

Traditional batteries used in hybrid cars are enormously toxic to the environment, use up finite rare mineral resources (for anodes, cathodes and plastic housings) and require a lot of energy to produce and dispose of. The newer Lithium-ion batteries developed for plug-in hybrids are better but still have issues that need to be resolved. At best, hybrids are a "conservation method" that can reduce the growth in transportation energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission. They are not a solution, however, as they don't deal with the growth in "Vehicle Miles Per Person" (something I'll explain shortly).

This leads to the second more important problem with the Sierra Club's focus on CAFE standards and alternative fuels. It ignores the fact that over 40% of the greenhouse gas and pollution that a car creates is created in its manufacture and disposal. (Study by the Environment and Forecasting Institute in Heidelberg, Germany). Huge amounts of energy and petroleum must be used to forge the steel in a car's frame and make the plastics in its interior, body and tires. While a car's metal parts can be recycled, the plastic and tires (now numbering in the billions) choke our landfills and often catch fire. Furthermore, greenhouse gas and pollution are created in the manufacture of the concrete, asphalt and roads themselves. All this pavement displaces greenspace and becomes a heat sync for solar energy, further contributing to global warming.


The paving of the US (and the planet) for cars is proceeding at a breathtaking pace. The automobile's inherent need for space-- to maneuver, drive and park-- creates spread-out, inefficient, land-use patterns that waste space and can only be negotiated by car. No matter what fuel you run a car on, you cannot change this basic fact-- that cars create sprawl. Sprawl, in turn, increases "Vehicle Miles Per Person" (VMP), which now stands at over 14,000 miles per year, per driver (double what it was 25 years ago). Sooner or later, the growth in VMP will overwhelm any savings that you can create with increased CAFE standards or alternative fuels. The Sierra Club and environmental groups have failed to seriously address the growth in highway building and sprawl and they have failed to take on the state highway departments that enable it. Besides increasing VMP, highways have gutted our cities, divided habitats and destroyed the kind of dense, walkable, bikeable communities that are necessary to make public transit effective.

Therefore, the only way to really address transportation sector climate change and pollution is to reduce automobile use. The only way to do this is to stop building new highways and new highway lanes and put this money into transit and automobile alternatives. While local Sierra Club chapters may oppose individual highway projects, the national (and state) Sierra Club organizations have a long history of aiding and abetting highway construction. I'll give you two recent examples.

In California, the legislature and governor killed a bonding proposition for high-speed rail and, in its place, balloted a 11.3 billion dollar bonding proposition for new highway construction. To buy off the support of environmental groups, they threw in 4 billion dollars for transit (only a third of highway spending)--
http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2006nov/pc/prop1B.html
The Sierra Club (and League of Conservation Voters) quietly endorsed the measure, which voters approved in November 2006. If the Sierra Club and other environmental groups had vocally opposed it, they have enough clout in California that it would not have passed. Instead they were convinced to make a sorry compromise that will result in 11.3 billion dollars in new paving, including awful projects like a new bore for the Caldecott highway tunnel in the East Bay hills (which the local chapter of the Club is opposing)--
http://www.ebbc.org/?q=node/401

In Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (like CALTRANS in California) is constantly agitating for more money. As in other states, they will say that this money is for "maintenance" of existing roads but this is a lie. In fact, they have dozens of new construction projects going on around the state in any given year. In 2007 they spent 3.5 times more money on expansion than maintenance. An August 11th piece in The Minneapolis Star Tribune said (quote)--
"A 10-year review of spending at the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) shows that money for road and bridge construction has gone up every single year, no matter the state's economic straits. In 1997 the state spent $368 million on road and bridge construction. By 2007, it had soared to $760 million." ..."Compare that with operation and maintenance of said roads and bridges, which stood at $213 million in 1997 and, by 2007, with a few dips and peaks, hit (just) $218 million."
(August 11, 2007 Star Tribune, formerly at--)
http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/mips_mobile_story.php?story=1357484
The Minnesota Legislative Auditor’s report confirmed the Star Tribune account, saying that
“…despite MnDOT's ‘preservation first’ policy, more than half of highway construction spending since 2002 has gone toward system expansion and less toward preservation.”
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/19/transpoaudit/

In fact, MnDOT, as all state highway agencies, is a political and financial juggernaut that gets what it wants out of the legislature. When the I-35 bridge collapse occurred, MnDOT and the state Democratic Party (a slave to state construction unions and engineering firms) went on a full-court press to try and raise gas taxes. In Minnesota, as in 90% of U.S. states, gas taxes are dedicated to highway building in the state constitution. So, if you increase fuel taxes, you automatically increase highway building. MnDOT tried to blame the bridge collapse on lack of money for road maintenance. However, the real cause was that the agency put 8 lanes on a bridge designed for 4 (in two separate lane expansions), leading to a failure of gusset plates on the bridge. See the NTSB report-- http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2008/H08_1.pdf

Even if maintenance had been an issue, the agency was spending the lion's share of its dedicated funding on new construction so the issue was not a need for money but how that money was being spent. Nevertheless, using a compliant state (and national) media, MnDOT and state Democrats were able to convince voters that the state needed to raise gas taxes. Once again, to bribe the Sierra Club to go along with a huge highway bill, they threw them (and other transit advocates) a few crumbs for transit. In exchange for increasing state highway spending by $660 Million per year, the legislature agreed to allow a metro sales tax increase for transit that will ultimately amount to less than $100 million. The state Sierra Club went along with this horrific bargain and endorsed the highway bill. They joined "Progress in Motion" a group funded primarily by asphalt companies and construction unions. See the "List of Participants" at--
http://www.transportationalliance.com/progressinmotion/participants.htm
With the help of the Sierra Club, the gas tax passed over the governor's veto by ONE VOTE! Again, if the Sierra Club had vocally opposed the gas tax increase and demanded that the legislature deliver a "clean" transit funding bill, not attached to a highway bill, the highway bill would never have passed. Eventually, construction interests in the state would have had to support transit funding (by itself) or get nothing. Instead, the Sierra Club supported what will amount to 6.6 billion dollars of new highway paving during the next 10 years. To add insult to injury, the governor and legislature have recently turned around and cut off other bonding and legislative funding to transit basically nullifying the transit sales tax increase.

I could tell you half a dozen other recent stories of state Sierra Club chapters making sorry compromises with state highway departments and legislatures that have either backfired or resulted in billions of dollars in new highway construction.

The problem is the Sierra Club's national policy on transportation, highways and land use. As it stands, the Club has just a vague statement on transportation goals that says what the club supports but does NOT say what it opposes. It allows state chapters too much wiggle room to make bad compromises like the ones I described, even if they are entirely contrary to the Club's stated goals. See--
http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/trans.asp

Compare the Transportation policy statement to the Club's policy on offshore oil drilling, which clearly states in its own section that the club "opposes development and protection of the oil resources of the Outer Continental Shelf and any inland areas from which oil resources cannot be extracted and transported to market without danger of substantial environmental damage resulting." It then proceeds to give specific conditions that must be met before any offshore petroleum exploration can be supported by the Club--
http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/offshore.asp
These specific statements of opposition and specific conditions for Club acquiescence limit state chapters from endorsing bad offshore drilling deals in exchange for environmental offset bribes from state officials. It is the same with the Club's policy on coal mining, nuclear energy and many other issues, all of which spell out in no uncertain terms what the club opposes.

What is needed in transportation is a similar, unequivocal policy statement, enforced by the board, that the Club opposes any new highway construction or FUNDING for new highway construction with no exceptions (or unless very stringent conditions are met). The Club must demand state transit funding bills that are "clean" and not attached to huge increases in highway spending. The Club needs to recognize that State Departments of Transportation and their billions in dedicated fuel taxes, tab fees and MVSales taxes are Environmental Enemy Number One. The club must advocate for state versions of the federal "ISTEA" legislation (the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) that will divert some portion of state gas taxes to transit. At the same time, the Club must advocate for "fix it first" laws that bind state DOTs to spending their dedicated funds exclusively on maintenance. The national progressive transportation lobby group “Surface Transportation Policy Partnership” has authored many studies on the need for "fix it first" laws. Here's one from 2003-- http://www.transact.org/library/roadconditiondecoder.asp

If the club doesn't reign in state highway builders and road building, the resulting increase in sprawl and Vehicle Miles Per Person will overwhelm any achievements in CAFE standards or alternative fuels. The club currently wastes its time and resources fighting individual highway projects instead of fighting the funding (on a macro level) that pays for those projects. I urge you to adopt new policy statements on transportation and highways that specifically oppose new highway construction and highway funding (unless, perhaps, very stringent "fix it first" laws are enacted with the funding and a state DOT can prove, by independent audit, that none of its money is going to new highway or lane construction). Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I look forward to your response.


REASONS TO OPPOSE A GAS TAX INCREASE: (Andy Singer,  8/26/07)

There have been a lot of politically and ideologically motivated attempts to blame the I-35 bridge collapse on different groups and individuals. These range from the most popular (blaming Pawlenty's veto of gas tax increases) to The Taxpayer's League and Republican theory that "Liberals caused it" by spending too much money on bike paths and public transit. The fact is that blame for the collapse rests completely with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Sadly, we are about to reward them for their failure with a huge gas tax increase.

The I-35 bridge collapsed not because MnDOT lacked money but because it chose to spend the billions of dollars it had on expansion rather than maintenance. MnDOT receives at least a billion dollars each year from taxes that are constitutionally dedicated to highways. For example, proceeds from the state gas tax (which amount to over $450 Million per year) must be spent on highways. Even if the legislature had control over how MnDOT spends its money (which they don't), they couldn't force MnDOT to spend gas tax money on transit or bike paths. They would first have to amend the state constitution ...and highway interests aren't about to let that happen. It's the same with license tab fees and a portion of motor vehicle sales taxes. On top of this, MnDOT receives hundreds of millions in federal dollars dedicated to highways. Their total yearly budget tops 2 billion dollars, some years even more, such as when the legislature appropriates bonding money or some major federal project receives funding. What does MnDOT do with its multi-billion dollar budget? Like all major government agencies, it tries to expand.

MnDOT had dozens of new highway expansion projects going on this summer, including the expansion of the I-35 Crosstown ...even as they were letting their existing infrastructure rot. In an August 11th article, The Minneapolis Star Tribune detailed that, over the last ten years, MnDOT has spent anywhere from 1.5 to 3.5 times more money on new construction than on maintenance and operations. In 2007, they budgeted $760 Million for expansion and just $218 Million for maintenance. Millions more went to debt service to cover the costs of prior expansions. This focus on expansion over maintenance is a nationwide problem. All state DOTs (and many other big government agencies) would rather expand than maintain what they already have, because there is more money, jobs and political pork in expansion. The Surface Transportation Policy Partnership in Washington DC and other national groups have studied this phenomenon extensively and come to the same conclusion.

What we need is a "Fix it First" policy that forces MnDOT (and other state DOTs) to spend more of their funds on maintenance. Increasing the gas tax will just reward the agency's failure and give them the funds to pave over the rest of the state with financially, socially and environmentally destructive highway projects. If we really want to stop global warming, sprawl, and the deterioration of Minnesota's air quality, we need to get people out of their cars. We do this by using public transit, commuter rail, more affordable urban housing and better urban and regional planning. Giving MnDOT money to build yet more freeways will only make matters worse. I urge people to oppose a gas tax increase and force MnDOT to use it's existing money to "Fix it First."





A Letter to Democratic Party legislators and Environmentalists in Minnesota

Anyone who supports a proposed gas tax increase also supports:
1. More road building;
2. The resulting increase in driving, air pollution and oil consumption state wide;
3. The resulting increase in suburban sprawl;
4. The diminishing air quality in the Twin Cities, which is rapidly headed towards becoming an EPA "Non-Attainment" area;
5. The destruction of yet more Twin Cities land by highway expansion projects like The Crosstown, The Access Project and the Northern Connection of Ayd Mill Road, all of which could potentially receive funding from such a tax increase;
6. ...And the increase in financial and political power of an agency (MnDOT) whose sole purpose is highway building and who already commands billions of dollars in highway-dedicated state and federal gas taxes, toll revenues and motor vehicle fees.

The only way a gas tax increase is not environmentally destructive is if all (or over 50%) of the money is going to automobile alternatives (or into the state's general fund) ...OR if non-automotive transport funding passed with the gas tax increase FAR outweighs the negative effects of road building. In the current situation, neither of these mitigating factors are present. Non-automotive transport is given financial crumbs ...mainly to buy the support of foolish transit advocates.

The DFL party needs to decide if it's an "Environmental" party or a "Road Building" party. It can't be both. You simply cannot reduce global warming gas emissions, air pollution, water pollution and oil consumption if you are simultaneously building new highways. Another gas tax increase would reduce the quality of Minnesota's rural and urban environments. This is an unarguable fact.

I hope Governor Pawlenty vetoes any increase ...even if it's for the wrong reasons!



A SATIRE/PARODY PIECE I SUBMITTED TO "THIS I BELIEVE" ...an often serious and pretentious feature on National Public Radio  (Andy Singer, 3/19/07)

I believe in skepticism, …but I’m not sure.
I believe that needing to state your beliefs is a sign of fear and insecurity.
I believe, if my life had some useful purpose, I wouldn’t be writing a radio show to tell them about my beliefs.
I believe in Jerry Rubin’s saying, “Never trust anyone over 30.” …Which is why I don’t trust myself.
I believe I’m not sure what I believe.
...But, most of all, I believe in humor. Specifically, I believe in the kind of humor that gets to the core of a serious issue and then laughs at it—the kind of humor that strips away pretensions, opens your eyes and enables you to see the world in a new way.

I believe it’s important not only to laugh but to laugh at yourself and allow others to laugh at you. Most politicians, orthodox religious folks or people in positions of power don’t like to be laughed at. Heck, most of us don’t like to be laughed at, including me. Don’t laugh! The best comedians can laugh at themselves, however, and they often derive their most incisive humor from this. I’m thinking of people like Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Gilda Radner, Dave Barry, Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, Mel Brooks, Tom Lehrer, and Paula Poundstone. I LOVE you guys! You’ve helped me survive 41 years on this planet.

Humor dissipates pain and anxiety. It’s gotten me through a lot of hard physical and emotional times. When we stop laughing, the pain and anxiety builds up inside us and we start acting crazy. It’s no coincidence that repressive governments or religious groups often try to censor humor. Eliminating laughter helps them keep their populations under control. They go after cartoonists like Honoré Daumier, comedians like Lenny Bruce or, more recently, Bill Mahr and Tom Toles. They claim these humorists are “unpatriotic.” If they can’t arrest them, they orchestrate hate-mail campaigns to try and get them fired from the newspaper, radio show or TV outlet that publishes them. Orthodox religious mullahs issue fatwas for their execution …all in an effort to stop the laughter! Because nothing disarms power like humor and satire.

…But maybe humor uselessly dissipates rage and energy that could be better used to challenge power and fix problems? As a skeptic, I can’t be sure. We skeptics can’t be sure of anything …but, on the bright side, we’re open to everything. Uh, where was I? …Oh yeah... Humor is very personal. What one person finds humorous, another might find revolting or insulting—like the campfire scene in the Mel Brooks film “Blazing Saddles” or that scene in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail,” where an academic historian is lecturing about medieval history and a medieval knight on horseback rides by out of nowhere and kills him! …Now THAT’s funny!

Lastly, I believe that humor is destroyed by any attempt to describe it. So I’ll stop right here. Suffice it to say, I hope we all keep laughing.


PERSONAL NEWS  (Andy Singer, 1/16/07)

I haven't been able to update the site or write and draw as frequently as I'd like. This is because I'm enrolled in a one year paralegal program, learning about Real Estate law, Intellectual Property law, Civil and Criminal Litigation, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Healthcare Law, Environmental Law and all that jazz. I did 12 credits in the fall and currently have 4 credits for January Term. I start the last 12 credits in February. Fun fun fun.

One interesting factoid I learned is this-- "In 2000, the Brookings Institution estimated that at least 50 percent and possibly as much as 85 percent of the value of American companies is attributable to their intangible assets, such as intellectual property." (Intellectual Property for Paralegals, Deborah E. Bouchoux, Thompson, 2005). If true, this means 50 to 85 percent of the American economy is essentially built on thin air-- pure Enron-like smoke and mirrors. Companies routinely conduct "Intellectual Property Audits," which attempt to assess the value of a company's copyrights, trademarks, patents and trade secrets. In many ways it is the ultimate form of "Creative Accounting" and a way to artificially inflate a company's assets. Thousands of companies DO inflate their assets and we see the huge sums of money paid for Google or YouTube or AOL. ...But if technology changes or other countries, companies or individuals start to ignore our patents, trademarks  or copyrights (or hack into trade secrets), the value of US companies will plummet.

I also read a fun case-- Hustler Magazine v. Fallwell, 485 U.S. 108 (1988), written by Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The thought of Him, Sandra O Connor and the high court seriously examining a fake advertisement describing Jerry Fallwell screwing his mother in an outhouse is very funny ...and the opinion contains some great musings on the history of cartoons and freedom of speech. Check it out!


THE RECENT ELECTION IN CALIFORNIA  (Andy Singer 12/8/06)

Once again, Democrats in California appear to be smoking crack. On the one hand they passed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (though its implementation provisions are very vague). On the other hand, Don Perata and company, balloted, advocated for and passed a so-called "Transportation" bonding proposition that was over 75% money for highways! We simply cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions and simultaneously build new highways. New highways increase driving, sprawl and overconsumptive human development patterns. Ironically, many of the highway projects paid for by these bonds will pave over the very urban areas where most of the state's Democratic voters live. The saddest part of it all is that Democrats balloted the highway bond AFTER they killed (for the hundredth time) a bonding bill for high-speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles, one of the most highly traveled corridors in the country. We should be spending every available transportation dollar on public transit. Global warming and diminishing world oil supplies may soon render our highway system useless.



FALSE CHOICES IN IRAQ  (Andy Singer,  9/2/06)

Last Week, in a press conference, President Bush again reiterated his position on the Iraq war. He framed the issue as a choice between staying in Iraq or leaving, and he explained that leaving would be disastrous for the US, the Iraqis and his so-called "War on Terror".

As always, Bush and the Republicans are allowed to frame the debate as a false choice between two extremes. In reality, the choices are much more complex. If we stay, are we going to continue to back Nouri al-Maliki's government in an effort to create an intact Iraqi state? Or are we going to allow Iraq to be carved up into 3 separate countries, representing the 3 major ethnic groups? If we leave, can we work with Iraq's neighbors to ensure that any ensuing civil war (if it escalates) is contained within Iraq's borders and doesn't end up spilling out into the entire region?

Iraq was a failed state from the moment it was artificially created by the British in 1921. The British cobbled together a random collection of disparate lands with no attention to the conflicting ethnic and religious make up of their inhabitants-- Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The British even made up the name "Iraq" and the national flag. To add insult to injury, they imposed a Hashemite Arab prince, Faisal, as "King" of the newly made up country, a man who had no native roots or connections to the region. From the beginning, the history of Iraq was a history of uprisings, civil wars, coups, foreign interventions and political assassinations. From its inception, the only way to hold Iraq together has been with force. Isn't it time to consider breaking it up? We could give the Kurds the homeland they've always dreamed of, put Shiite holy places under Shiite control, and grant Sunnis their own region or perhaps cede it to Syria, with whom there is some ethnic and political affinity? At what point do we say that the effort to create a democratic, federal Iraqi state is impossible and is not worth the lives, money and resources that we and the Iraqis are pouring into it?

These are the sort of subtleties that the Bush Administration refuses to address. They are obsessed with a potentially impossible goal and incapable of evaluating or modifying that goal or their strategy for achieving it. By contrast, those who advocate immediate pull-out lack a strategy for containing an expanded civil war, should one arise. They are also guilty of a failure to communicate with some of Iraq's biggest neighbors like Iran and Syria who really should have input into such a decision (just as they should have had input into the decision to invade Iraq in the first place). Like a 3-way partition of the country, an exit strategy needs to involve all of Iraq's major neighbors-- Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. There needs to be some mutually agreed upon framework ensuring that these countries are not drawn into or destabilized by an Iraqi civil war and don't escalate it with massive weapons shipments or other military aid.

I hope our current political discourse has room to discuss these subtleties and different strategies for achieving them. As it is, we seem gridlocked into sound bites and false choices.

To learn more about the history of Iraq, I recommend reading the book "The Reckoning" by Sandra Mackey (W.W. Norton 2002).


"PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM" (Andy Singer,  January 11, 2006)

In the last 4 years, many people have accused the Democratic Party of being "Wimpy" in its opposition to President Bush. In the first three and a half years of the Bush administration, this was certainly true. In the last year and a half, however, something quite different is happening. Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, John Edwards and others who supported the Iraq war are acting tougher and more hawkish than the Republicans.

I chalk it up to what psychologists call "Pathological Narcissism". This theory says that people don't want to think badly of themselves and those that they love. Sometimes, they become so afraid of self criticism that they build up elaborate lies or self-delusions to avoid having to face their mistakes, traumas or short comings. When refusal to admit wrong causes a person (or Country) to become delusional it's called "Pathological Narcissism". The Psychologist M. Scott Peck (who died recently) wrote about this phenomenon in his book "People of the Lie" ...and felt like it was the root of human evil. He was on the Congressional commission that investigated the Mai Lai Massacres during Vietnam. There he witnessed Pathological Narcissism on the scale of an entire Platoon, where many soldiers and commanders who participated in the massacres where simply unable to face up to what had happened.

Today, we face Pathological Narcissism on a national level. President Bush got a majority of Senate Democrats, the media, so-called liberals like Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Friedman, Salman Rushdie and others to endorse his war ...and he got a majority of the US public to agree to pull the trigger. In so doing, he made us all complicit in his atrocity. While a majority of the public has woken up, many Democrats, pundits and others feel they must continue to defend the war or lose face. They argue that "The war has simply been mismanaged", that "ousting Saddam was worth it", that "Saddam was acting like he had WMD", that "Our intelligence seemed reliable", that "The possibility of WMD could, itself, justify what we have done".

In reality, however, we invaded a sovereign country on a made-up pretext, ignoring overwhelming international objections. In the process, we killed two thousand of our own troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi troops and civilians ...and we permanently maimed tens of thousands more. We have now destabilized an entire country, plunging it into a partial civil war of car bombs and death squads. That's a tough pill to swallow.

Every nation has bad things that it just doesn't want to admit. The Turks don't want to admit they slaughtered Armenians. Israelis don't want to admit that they took Palestinian land by force in 1948 and 1968, despite their former prime minister Itzhak Rabin (and many others) admitting to taking part in forced expulsions as young army officers. The US has TONS of stuff it doesn't want to admit-- what we did to native Americans, to African Americans, to the Vietnamese, to Iranians, to the Nicaraguans ...the list is endless. Now, many people, including leading Democrats are having a hard time admitting what we've done in Iraq.

As anyone who has gone through Alcoholics Anonymous or any 12-step program will tell you, the first step towards improving your life is to admit your mistakes to yourself and to other people. Only then can you face reality and make positive changes in your life. The Democrats and many others need to first admit they made a terrible mistake-- that a mixture of manipulation, fear and arrogant paternalism made them believe that they could impose Democracy and "Regime Change" on another nation. We can't even solve chronic poverty in a single US city ...how could we possibly have invaded and rebuilt an entire Mideast nation about which we knew nothing?!? Once we admit our mistakes, we will be able to see the current situation for what it truly is and have the potential to improve it.

Hopefully the Democratic party will admit its mistakes, do a little soul searching and the "Pragmatists" (like Howard Dean, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and others) will come out on top. If not, we are going to be in this mess for a long time to come.



AMTRAK FIRES ITS PRESIDENT (November 10, 2005)

For those of you interested in public transit, the very competent and successful president of AMTRAK was fired yesterday by a bunch of Bush's crony recess appointments to the AMTRAK board. It is a move by Bush to privatize and dismantle AMTRAK over the objections of Congress and the US voters. I urge people to contact their congress people and President Bush about this. Gas Taxes and user fees pay just 60% of Federal and State highway costs, so highways are THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE SUBSIDIZED than AMTRAK. Below is a link to and text from a New York Times article on David Gunn's firing.

Amtrak Fires Its President in Dispute Over Future
By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: November 10, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/politics/10amtrak.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - Amtrak's board fired the company's president on Wednesday morning, widening a divide between the Bush administration and Congress over the future of the railroad.

David Gunn, who is widely credited with improving the railroad's management, cutting costs and imposing better financial controls, was fired today by Amtrak's board of directors.

The board chairman, David M. Laney, said that the president, David Gunn, helped develop a strategic plan that would have injected more competition into passenger operations, but that Mr. Gunn's "enthusiasm and commitment seems to have drained away."

Mr. Laney said Mr. Gunn had failed to move forward on simpler initiatives, like outsourcing maintenance and catering in a way that would cut expenses.

But in a letter to the board dated Nov. 9, Mr. Gunn said, "I can assure you that we have already begun to work on those initiatives that are wholly within our control." In a telephone interview Wednesday he said some changes would require action by Congress.

Mr. Gunn, who is credited with turning around New York City's subway system in the 1980's and came out of retirement three years ago to steer

Amtrak successfully during a financial crisis, described the reason for his dismissal as "ideological."

"Obviously, what their goal is - and it's been their goal from the beginning - is to liquidate the company," Mr. Gunn said in the interview.

The Bush administration has proposed putting the railroad tracks of the Boston-to-Washington Northeast Corridor, which are Amtrak's major asset, in the hands of a federal-state consortium, an idea Mr. Gunn has vehemently opposed. The board has voted for now to put the corridor in a separate subsidiary.

Mr. Gunn said he did not oppose injecting some competition into the system if it was done carefully. He pointed out that the administration had discussed bankrupting the railroad, which would mean breaking it up, as a way to reorganize.

"They want at least one transportation mode that is totally free market," Mr. Gunn said.

But highways, airports and ports are all federally subsidized, he said, decrying "all this angst over an operating deficit of 500 million bucks for the whole country, and the bulk of money going into capital or infrastructure."

The action Wednesday was a sharp turnaround for the board. Asked in September about Mr. Gunn's performance, Mr. Laney told a Senate subcommittee, "Mr. Gunn has done, as far as I am concerned, a splendid job." He said Mr. Gunn had "righted a ship that was listing and about to spill over."

Mr. Gunn is known as a rail-turnaround artist. He was brought in to fix the New York City subway system in the 1980's, and provided leadership in the construction of the subway system in Washington.

Amtrak's supporters in Congress reacted swiftly and bitterly to Mr. Gunn's removal. Democrats sought to contrast what they said were his successes, including cutting expenses, increasing ridership and improving the railroad's physical condition, with the recent failures of the Federal Emergency Management Agency after Hurricane Katrina.

"We have learned recently that there is room for cronies in this administration," said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota "and we've learned the cost of cronyism. And now we've learned today there is not room for straight shooters."

Senator Charles E. Schumer Democrat of New York, questioned the board's legal ability to fire Mr. Gunn. Only one board member, Mr. Laney, has been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Schumer pointed out. The secretary of transportation is, by statute, a member, and two other members are recess appointments, whose terms will expire when Congress goes home in a few weeks. There are three vacancies.

"Gunn is more legitimate than the board is," Mr. Schumer said.

He asserted that Mr. Gunn was fired over policy, saying: "The policy difference is that the board wants to kill Amtrak and Gunn wants it to prosper. It's that simple."

The railroad announced Wednesday morning that Mr. Gunn had been "released" from his job, then notified Mr. Gunn. He replied with a memorandum to the board: "For your information, I did not resign. I was removed. It's been fun. Good luck."

Mr. Gunn, 68, was paid $275,000 a year. An Amtrak spokesman, Clifford Black, said he did not know if there was a severance package.

On Sept. 30, the railroad ended the fiscal year with $120 million in cash as operating capital, a strong performance, Mr. Gunn said, especially considering that the Acela express train was out of service for most of the summer because of a brake problem. The Senate just voted

93 to 6 to authorize $11.6 billion for Amtrak over the next six years, although the vote did not actually appropriate any money. That measure, which will probably go to a conference committee to work out differences with a House version, would make the Amtrak president a member of the board.

Both the House and Senate have supported aid packages for the current fiscal year that are far more generous that the White House has proposed.

But the Government Accountability Office said last week that while progress had been made at the railroad, Amtrak needed "fundamental improvements."

Mr. Gunn is widely credited with improving the railroad's management, cutting costs, imposing better financial controls and improving the state of repair of Amtrak's locomotives and passenger cars, which are old, and its tracks, signals and electrical systems, which are truly antique. But while ridership has recently risen to record levels, government auditors predicted that Amtrak's budget deficit would grow sharply in the next few years. The administration has said it is determined to end the perennial subsidies to the railroad, which was created 30 years ago to take over passenger service as the commercial railroads abandoned that business as unprofitable.

RETURN TO NEWS PAGE