Latest From Our Writers

Ok, so let me get this straight. Our energy system is 96 percent dependent on coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear; coal and oil are the main drivers of climate change; nuclear energy is the main contributor to WMD proliferation; natural gas terminals are prime terrorist targets and we're building more near cities; the oil industry has not built a new refinery for 30 years but energy companies, like Exxon, are reporting record profits—and Congress just gave all four industries close to $15 billion in subsidies.

Now, I'm the first one to acknowledge that it is the government that allows markets to function properly. Government enforces contracts. Government establishes measures, harmonizes standards, and provides essential market infrastructure, like roads, communications spectrum and ports. Government also ensures that the processes of commerce do not impose costs on people who are not primary parties to commercial transactions.

That last point is essential and yet has been twisted and distorted over the last 50 years. America's zoning laws emerged out of progressive activism at the turn of the century, when early industrial factories were massive sources of pollution and it was essential to separate residential areas from industrial areas. The same applied to power plants and fuel refineries. Given the technology of the day, keeping these massive pollution sources away from residential areas was important.

More »»

Why would Republicans working on the energy bill in conference sneak in a provision that gives a "consortium" conveniently located in Tom DeLay's district control of a billion-dollar handout to big oil? Because they'd never get away with it had the measure been subjected to a vote. According to a letter from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., this secretly inserted and obscenely costly provision is a "serious abuse" and "should be deleted" before the final energy bill is brought to the House floor.

Even President Bush's own energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, conceded yesterday that the energy bill gives too much money to industry. About the $3 billion in tax breaks and incentives in the bill, Bodman said that oil and gas companies "don't need incentives with oil and gas prices being what they are today." And Bodman was commenting only on the provisions that were inserted in the clear light of day, not those added after all discussion of the legislation had officially been closed.

More »»

As the watershed August 15th deadline for the Iraqi constitutional committee approaches, the situation is looking mighty grim. The current constitutional drafting process is in deadlock, having just released a draft that enshrines not only shari'ah law but, as Juan Cole has reported, Shi'ite religious leaders as holders of a religious veto over any and all national legislation. Combine that with last weekend's release of a map by the Kurds that shows Kurdish territory extending to the south of Baghdad and the tenuous participation of the Sunni delegation. All told, it looks like the analysis of Nathan Brown from the Carnegie Endowment, that the current process, "will disappoint many of its participants," is a profound understatement.

More »»

You know that "war on terror" our troops have been fighting for  two years? Yeah, that's over.

Now, we're involved in a "global stuggle against violent extremism." (It just rolls off the tongue.) The White House has decided that the "war on terror" moniker that's been a catch phrase for so long just isn't cutting it anymore. "War," of course, implies death and destruction and flag-drapped coffins (and heaven knows, we don't want to think about those). Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he thinks that "war" implies that uniformed troops are the answer. (Wait? You mean they're not?!)  And Steven J. Hadley, the national security advisor, told The New York Times, "It's broader than [a war on terror.] It's a global struggle against extremism. We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative."

More »»

There's a strange silence in the liberal blogosphere about Bush’s nominee to head the SEC, Christopher Cox. Considering the devastating effect of corporate scandals like Enron on the economic security of American workers, you’d think more liberals and Democrats would pay close attention to who heads the watchdog agency. Yesterday, Public Citizen released a report analyzing both Cox’s voting record and the legislation he has sponsored during his years as a U.S. congressman. The results moved Public Citizen’s director Joan Claybrook to call the specter of Cox’s confirmation “disastrous” for the average investor. There's still time to join the effort to block his nomination.

Today, we reprint an op-ed by Jamie Court of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights that echoes Claybrook's concerns:

More »»

University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole is a favorite here at TomPaine.com for informed, progressive analysis of the Middle East. In skimming the coverage of the latest bombings in Egypt and London, Cole's latest post stuck out. He puts the attacks in a global context and dares to ask what might have happened if the Bush administration hadn't launched two wars in the wake of 9/11.

Cole writes:<!--StartFragment -->

Strategically, it is increasingly clear that if you wanted to wage a "war on terror," letting Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri alone while you invade and destabilize Iraq and let the Israeli-Palestinian conflict just fester was a very bad idea.

Many commentators are putting out the straw man argument that the Iraq War cannot be blamed for terrorism because September 11 and Bali, e.g., happened before the Iraq War.

More »»

Help us spread the word about these important stories...

Email to a friend

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on OurFuture.org.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Your Email: *

Your Name: *

Send To: *

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You can only email up to 10 recipients

You are going to email the following: What If...?

Message Subject: (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from OurFuture.org

Message Body: (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the OurFuture.org web site.

Your Personal Message: *

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Propeller
• Reddit
• Magnoliacom
• Newsvine
• Furl
• Facebook
• Google
• Yahoo
• Technorati

John Burns wrote in  yesterday's New York Times  on the question fuelling much discussion in Washington these days: Is Iraq already mired in a civil war? The simple answer is no. But we're also not far from it.

The situation in Iraq is complex, but here's the bottom line: The threshold for civil war in Iraq will be crossed when the parties in Iraq begin to use violence to seize and hold territory and when the current U.S.-brokered constitutional process breaks down.

Right now, the insurgents are using guerilla tactics that are targeting political objectives, not territorial ones. As Bob Dreyfuss reports today in his excellent article here in TomPaine.com, "A Way Out Of Iraq," the insurgents have political demands which have, in fact, been written down. These demands focus on Sunni participation in Iraq's political process and the increasing influence of Iran in Iraqi politics. And, as Edward Wong reported this morning from Iraq, the Sunnis are back at the constitutional table. The question is: are they really represented and do they have any real influence over the outcome of the process?

More »»

It astounds me sometimes how otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned people can confuse slogans for strategy. The increasing debate over U.S. policy toward Iraq is a prime—and dangerous—example. Many proponents of immediate withdrawal believe that the U.S. presence in Iraq is the primary and proximate cause of the insurgency and therefore removal of the U.S. occupation will cauterize the wound. Subsequently, 'withdrawal first' advocates say, the international community can muster whatever forces or humanitarian workers are needed to help a sovereign Iraq get on its feet. Et, voila. Iraq will be free and viable. Poppycock.

Where to begin? Let's start with some basic observations of the situation. Iraq is on the verge of genocidal civil war, so says the relatively moderate Shi'a leader Sistani. Yet the insurgency is right now largely contained within the three provinces that make up the Sunni heartland, so says the British military. How do these square? Simple. The situation right now is not a civil war, that Kurdish and Shi'a groups are still invested in the political process and that time is running out. Shi'a militias are strong, growing and training. And the Kurdish Peshmerga are battle-tested units.

More »»

I don’t think anyone looks forward to going to the Department of Motor Vehicles, knowing full well that the trip will take at least a few hours out of their day.

But it will only get worse. The REAL ID Act, which slipped through Congress on the back of a military funding bill, pushes the buttons of a number of governors. The act requires states to design their drivers' licenses to meet federal anti-terrorist standards by 2008, including referencing all identification documents (like passports or Social Security cards) against federal databases. TomPaine.com has published about this act before, but it’s still an issue of concern.

The renewed discussion of the legislation was prompted by the National Governor’s Convention in Iowa this week. Governors are starting to squirm under the new requirements that the DMV will have to meet. The new law, which passed in June, goes beyond an earlier measure that sought to standardize state driver's licenses, requiring that states verify that license applicants are American citizens or legal residents.

And you thought the DMV lines were long now.

More »»

When President Bush announced John G. Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday night, I'd heard of the guy only in passing. So I scrambled around, reading news stories and legal experts' blogs, trying to get a handle on his qualifications and his background. I also tried to take in the vast landscape of activist activity surrounding Roberts' nomination. It wasn't an easy task. Luckily, if you want to read up on Roberts, there's now a central webpage for progressives interested in educating themselves about the man who could be our next Supreme Court justice—or taking part in the battle against his confirmation. Check out The Supreme Court: Guide For Activists from Moving Ideas. It's got reports on Roberts' record and background, mobilization efforts around the country, and important analysis of what's at stake.

More »»