FEAR OF ASSASSINATION RISING IN THE NATION. MAXIMUM PROTECTION OF CANDIDATES IS NECSSARY

It is good that the subject of assassinations has become part of public discourse in the United States during the current run for the presidency. It is a painful subject, but it does no good to sweep it under the carpet. Especially now!

The ugly remark, claimed to be a joke, made by former Governor Mike Huckabee at a recent meeting of the National Rifle Association when he referred to a loud noise from behind a curtain as the sound of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama getting shot calls into question his fitness to ever serve in public office ever again, but it filled a very useful purpose.

Friends Express Fear

The fear that the first African American ever to win the nomination for President of one of our major political parties could get shot is growing. (At this writing, Barack Obama is the likely nominee, but not the certain nominee.) I’ve heard that fear from some of my friends—an unsolicited fear, I have to add—but it’s a fear that also has been growing in me as Barack Obama has edged ever closer to the Democratic Party’s nomination.

Senator Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks reminding the public that Robert Kennedy was assassinated in a California hotel in June 1968 as he was close to the Democratic nomination for President was viewed as a too shocking reminder by some, especially in light of the recent news about the health crisis of Senator Ted Kennedy, Robert Kennedy’s brother, but Senator Clinton should not have apologized.

Senator Clinton, Don’t Apologize

What Senator Clinton was saying was that she felt she should stay in the race for the Democratic Part nomination for President to the very end of the process because we can never tell what’s going to happen in the political arena in this county. Unfortunately, the sour note that Senator Clinton was sounding has been justified by historical fact on a number of occasions in this country. Gun violence has intruded its ugly self in our political affairs.

Having lived through the assassinations of the 1960s, I know that fear of assassination is no flight of fancy. I do fear that people are at work in this country today who would resort to the use of gun violence to achieve their ends, thus subverting the will of the people, just as such people were at work in the 1960s. Some might argue that the 1960s were a different period of time than the first decade of the 21st century, but are they really?

FBI

Look at what happened at Virginia Tech a year ago. Look at the Columbine tragedy and so many other examples of gun violence in our universities and schools. It is true that in the 1960s, the chief police agency in this country, namely the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was run by a racist who had been completely comprised by organized crime. That person was J. Edgar Hoover, in my opinion one of the worst human beings ever to have infested himself in an important administrative position in government in any country.

Because the nation had the misfortune to have had a thoroughly corrupted J. Edgar Hoover in a senior position in law enforcement in this country, the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy took place. Yes, I believe that, have long believed it, and do not see myself ever changing that opinion. The true perpetrators knew that a full and fair investigation of each of these events would not happen, that thus their roles in these events would never be found out. The bizarre coincidence of three assassinations in one decade, each supposedly unrelated to the other, is simply too pat to be believed. How can anyone of good sense ever subscribe to such an opinion?

Say These Things Now

By saying these things now it is my hope that we can alert those people whose job it is to protect our politicians and others in prominent positions that they must be ever vigilant in the days, months and years ahead. Violence must never be the way that decisions are made in this country ever again. A democracy where the gun is the maker of decisions is not a democracy that any person of decent values can and should want.

Having said that, I want to add my voice to that of Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California. In the current struggle for the nomination of President of the Democratic Party, my first choice has been Hillary Clinton. My second choice has been Barack Obama. These have been my choices since the first televised debate was held, and over the course of the primaries I have given money to both of these candidates. I was strongly drawn to Barack’s message of change, but I felt that Hillary’s message that she was the most experienced to lead this nation was the most compelling.

Democrats Come Together

The time has now arrived for the Democratic Party to come together and give us the strongest possible ticket for November. Given Barack’s lead in delegates at this writing, I believe that that ticket would be Barack Obama for President and Hillary Clinton for Vice President. Let us have both these fine candidates together on the same ticket. Let us have the strength of both to give us the strongest possible combination in November.

For more examples of the writing of Stephen Alan Saft and for news on his upcoming publications, please see the comprehensive site http://www.sasaftwrites.com.

Copyright © 2008 by Stephen Alan Saft

GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS CASTS DOUBT ON ETHANOL AS AN ANSWER TO OIL DEPENDENCY. NUCLEAR POWERED CAR ANYONE?

Maybe giving over so much of this country’s corn production to the production of ethanol as a way to ease this country’s dependence on foreign oil wasn‘t such a good idea. That’s not just my conclusion, but that of a whole lot of other people who care about the global food crisis as well as the oil dependency and global warming issues.

Global food crisis? What global food crisis? An article in a recent issue of The Washington Post by Anthony Faola and entitled “The Economics of Hunger” describes it in brutal detail (National Weekly Edition, May 5-11, 2008, page 6 and following). “The food price shock now roiling world markets is destabilizing governments, igniting street riots and threatening to send a new wave of hunger rippling through the world’s poorest nations,” says Faola. “It is outpacing even the Soviet grain emergency of 1972-75 when world food prices rose 78 percent. By comparison, from the beginning of 2005 to early 2008, prices leapt 80 percent, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization.”

Oil Prices Main Culprit

The soaring price of oil is the principal cause of rising food prices, that is, the soaring price of transporting the food from the growers to the people who need it, Faola makes clear. The role of traders and speculators also figures prominently in the crisis, but the drive to use some of the corn production in the United States for ethanol to power our cars and other vehicles is another important ingredient in the crisis.

“This year,” says Faola, “at least a fifth and perhaps a quarter of the U.S. corn crop will be fed to ethanol plants. As food and fuel fuse, it has presented a boon to American farmers after years of stable prices. But it has also helped spark the broader food-price shock.”

Ethanol Crisis Factor

Faola then quotes from a professor at Iowa State University. “'If you didn’t have ethanol, you would not have the prices we have today,’ says Bruce Babcock, a professor of economics and the director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University. ‘It doesn’t mean it’s the sole driver. Prices would be higher than we saw earlier in the decade because world grain supplies are tighter now than earlier in the decade. But we’ve introduced a new demand into the market.’”

Okay, I’ll admit it. I’m not a farmer, and so what I’m feeling right now as someone who also cares about the global warming issue is not disappointment at the news that ethanol does not appear to be the answer to the oil crisis. The combustion of ethanol releases just as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the combustion of a hydrocarbon like oil in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel. Ethanol has never been a solution to the global warming problem.

That said, the oil crisis still cries out for a solution. It cries out for a solution not just because for each of us in this country it has made going to the gasoline station to fill up the car a painful experience and not just because it has already driven many middle class and even less well off families into crisis. It cries out for a solution because, as we have seen, it is having such a devastating effect on the world food situation. People are starving in various parts of the world because of the escalation in fuel prices.

More Railroads Needed

What can we do to ease the burden of escalating fuel costs? We can put more pressure on those in government and on the makers of our cars to accelerate the development of more fuel efficient vehicles. We can demand an acceleration in the availability of hybrids and all electric cars. We can push for a revival of the more energy efficient railroads as the long-haul domestic carrier of choice for our agricultural produce and our manufactured goods.

We can demand that instead of widening our interstate highways yet again, especially those known for their seemingly endless truck traffic, that our rail carriers be encouraged to lay new track beds beside them. There are too many fuel guzzling trucks on our highways. For long hauls, rail makes far more sense as the carrier of choice. Okay, lets support the rebirth of the railroad, but let’s not be naïve about it.

Rail Runs On Coal

Our existing railroads today are principally run on electricity, and most of that electricity comes from coal-fired generating plants. The coal industry has proposed the building of coal fired generating facilities that release no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thus do not contribute to global warming. I say let them build some of these zero carbon dioxide emission facilities to prove that the concept works and then lets start weaning ourselves off of a dependency on coal.

What, not even coal? How many mountains do we need to reduce to a wasteland of rubble to convince ourselves that coal mining is no longer an acceptable method to supply our energy needs? We’ve done enough to ruin this precious planet of ours in the name of meeting our energy needs. Now it’s time to stop. It’s time for us to start restoring as much as possible of what we’ve destroyed. Those who come after us speaking to us today are demanding that of us. Anyway in my mind they are. The destruction of our mountains must stop.

Wind Power Or Nuclear?

Where is this line of reasoning leading me? How will we meet the needs for energy in the future if we have neither oil and its relative natural gas and coal? In a posting several months ago I provided some answers when I directed attention to alternative sources of energy such as wind power. In that posting I also indicated my support for nuclear power.

Since that posting I have modified my thinking somewhat. I now no longer believe that alternative forms of energy such as wind power and solar can meet more than a small part of our needs. For example, it is starting to become clear that the building of wind farms is going to be a victim of the not-in-my-backyard syndrome. Those claiming to be the most passionate supporters of alternative sources of energy often become the most resistant opponents when they’re told that someone wants to put a wind farm in the middle of some landscape they hold sacred.

France Showing The Way

Nuclear power plants suffer from an even worse stigma. In fact, the resistance to nuclear power plants remains very high in this country because of safety concerns, whether well founded or not. On the other hand, nuclear plants are far more efficient producers of electric power than wind farms and other alternative forms will ever be. Yes, I do favor nuclear power, and I do see it as the answer, at least in the long run, to our current energy problems. In this respect, France is showing the way on the direction we must take in this country. And while I’m at it, let me take the issue several steps further.

I believe that someday someone will build and demonstrate a small nuclear powered engine suitable for running a bus, truck, airplane or car. This small engine will use its nuclear component solely to generate heat. The heat in turn will be directly converted to electricity to run an electric motor. Sound far fetched? In fact, the direct conversion of heat to electricity has already been demonstrated, but I must admit that a small, well protected nuclear heat generator such as one that could be safely installed in a car does not yet exist. Anyway to best of my knowledge it does not exist.

In future postings as well as in my other writings, I hope to have more to say about the concept of the small nuclear powered engine. For other examples of my writing, please see the website http://www.sasaftwrites.com.

Copyright © 2008 by Stephen Alan Saft