Domestic agencies gain access to military satellites

— Another email to family members.  This one from 07 Oct 2008.

Be attentive!

• Another privacy compromise.
• Another incremental concession to civil liberties.
• The separation of the police and the military (e.g. domestic and international) duties continues to blurr and become more intertwined.

Domestic agencies will gain access to military satellites

Even the GAO (Government Accounting Office) warns of the risks to civil liberties and the violation of law.  Law?   Doesn’t seem to impair Bush’s behavior much.

Maybe the satellite use is not an immediate threat.  Maybe the recent Army brigade assignment is not an immediate threat.  Is it a pattern?  Perhaps.  Is it worth watching?  Yes!  Pay attention.  Write your congressional reps.  Let them know of your concerns.

A first: Army units assigned to domestic duties

– The basis of this posting was an email to family members in Sep 2008.  The event is also worthy of note here.

Here is another fundamental change.

This is “the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment …” for domestic operations.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

An Army brigade appears to between 1,500 and 3,200 soldiers.

It is a precedent worthy of our notice.  We have seen many other nations use the military to manage their populations.  A few questions come to mind.

• What conditions triggered this deployment?  Why now?
• What conditions trigger their use?
• What this unit’s intended use?
• Why is the National Guard insufficient for the task?  It has traditionally been the force used domestically.

The World Carrying Capacity

A little background …

• Today, world population is approximately 6.7 billion.
• In 1965, the population was about 3.3 billion.  Population has doubled in approx 43 years.
• In 1900, the population was about 1.7 billion.
• In 1850, it was about 1.26 billion
• In 1800, it was about .98 billion
• See the Wikipedia graph of human population

During this the most recent 100+ years, energy has been very cheap and available.

Some thoughts and questions …

• What happens when energy is more expensive, or less available?
• Agricultural output is hugely dependent upon petroleum for fertilizer and fuel.
• What will be the result on human population of reduced food production?
• As oil resources decline, are producers likely to continue exporting?  Or, might producers decide to retain the remaining resources for their own populations?

At the moment (Nov 2008) fuel prices have declined due to reduced demand.  The current, troubled,  financial environment supports a lower consumption level.  The reduced consumption is probably a short term effect until the economy improves.

My guess … without incredibly cheap and available energy resources the globe can support about 2 billion people.

How do we get there?

European Response to Financial Turmoil

Yes, the US has committed to $700 Billion.

On Mon, 13 Oct, Europeans ponied up something linke $2.3 Trillion to stabilize the current world financial order.  That’s a bit more than 3 times the U.S. commitment.

These are certainly exciting times!  Will these dramatic and gallant efforts work?

Costs of War

Do you recall seeing a fine gentleman on TV, in the early days of the Iraq war, describing the expected war costs?  Yup, it was that ole straight talker,  Mr Rumsfeld.  Yes, Don is the guy who tried to explain to us the variety of unknowns, bless him.  He certainly helped make things a lot more clear for me!

Mr Rumsfeld explained to us that the cost of the war could be expected to be around $60 Billion.  Well, guess what … it’s run a little over budget.

Here is a 2:39 film that helps to better explain the war costs.  We should be familiar with this topic.  War costs have lasting impacts.  The Hidden Costs of War

The Bailout and class conflict

Examine the Wealth distribution in the U.S.   A UCSC Professor, G. William Domhoff, writes extensively on the topic.   Read this 2006 article on wealth distribution.  There are a number of other authors who document similar data.

The Bush regime’s bailout program is welfare for the rich.  The ultra-rich elite prefer a system that privatizes profits, but socializes risks.  The most wealthy 1% of the U.S. owns almost 40% of the wealth (2001 data).  It is this group that now expects public help .

We might consider tackling the financial crisis by working from the bottom up, by subsidizing those who are in danger of mortgage default.  That’s the root cause of the crisis, right?  These institutions were not careful enough when financing property.  We might consider implementing the rescue from the bottom up.  Help those in trouble, which will help the loaning institution.  Why isn’t this part of the dialog and part of the plan?

Don’t cringe at the word “socialism“.  There is plenty of it in the U.S.  Social Security, and insurance are two very prominent forms of socialism.  You buy insurance, right?  You hope for retirement benefits, right?

Some terms for the bailout

Here are a few things that should be mandated as part of the bailout process:

• Any involved company officer should not be able to hold elected or appointed govt positions.
• Any officer should not be allowed to serve as a contractor to the govt.
• Any company employing or contracting one of these officers should not be eligible for govt contracts.
• The govt should receive equity positions in the companies it bails out.  Later, if the company is doing well, they should have the first right of refusal to repurchase that equity.  These companies are certainly looking for “partners” in their problems, today.  Let’s truly “partner” ‘with them, and have the opportunity to also enjoy the up side some day.
• The govt should receive board positions in the companies it bails out, just like a private partner would expect.
• Freeze foreclosures.  Judges should be able to renegotiate the terms of mortgages.  The act should help those in mortgage trouble, not provide a welfare gift to wealthy officers who engineered the problems.

Those involved are either incompetent or criminal.  Your choice.  Either way, they should no longer be eligible to play the game.  Let’s make

Sweden had a very similar experience in 1992.  Read this Time article.  Or, this NY Times article.

Unfortunately, intervention is probably critical at this point.  Let’s not abdicate more of our rights or liberties, as was done with the, hasty, Patriot Act.   We should proceed prudently.  Take sufficient time to structure a package that will keep the financial industry functioning … and will protect the taxpayers.

What would you do with $3,500? $5,000?

This is an interesting welfare system for the wealthy …

The US population is 301,000,000+/-.  Let’s assume there are 200,000,000 adults in the US, 18 years old and older.  Let’s divide $700 Billion by 200 million adults.   And we get $3,500 / adult.

700,000,000,000 / 200,000,000 = $3,500

If the welfare gift rises to a Trillion, the math changes a little.  It’s only a few billion more.

1,000,000,000,000 / 200,000,000 = $5,000

Do we just write a check and send it in to the IRS?  The Treasury?  Or directly to King George?

David