Rising Nucleotides

Nucleotides Rising

I'm not dead, I don't want to go on the cart, and I have created yet another thing to add to the list of stuff to update. I bring you: Nucleotides Rising, which is a fairly easy to remember name, being, like Rising Nucleotides backwards, and stuff. Makes my new comic sound like a powerful force, that just levitated out of the ocean, and that seems like a good image to project.

Click, for a notably larger version, suitable for being twice as large in both the X and Y dimensions.

Entry-level jobs are called "entry-level jobs" for a reason. You need to start somewhere-- unless, of course, you never start at all.

Foiled Again

Now that I have Nucleotides back up and running (two worthwhile posts in ten days certainly beats what had come before), I was about to make an announcement. It's a good thing, though, that I didn't say anything too hastily.

I was going to announce my candidacy for the United States Senate in 2006, and it seemed wise to investigate the matter before telling the entire internet about it. Well, this helpful page from the New York State Board of Elections informed me of something that I needed to know, yet didn't want to hear.

I had known that a candidate for president must be 35 years old, but I had believed that there were no age restrictions on other elected federal offices. The president is, after all, unique in having to be born a US citizen. It turns out, though, that Article I of the Constitution itself says that you have to be 30 to be a senator.

Inconveniently, I won't be. Seven months shy, if you use election day (November) as the yardstick. Congresspersons are sworn in in January, so that won't do, either.

And I would have gotten away with it, if not for those meddling Founding Fathers...

Gas Prices Back in March

It seems that high gasoline prices were big news over two weeks ago. Some grumbling noises that were made by OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) were, of course, blamed for the price increase. Nobody likes paying high prices at the pump, so politcians moved to assuage the publics's anger (such as it was). That's not really news.

The solution suggested by most leftist talking heads is for the Bush administration to 'get tough' with these uppity OPEC nations. John Kerry said "we should be putting pressure on OPEC to raise the supply and not allow those countries to undermine the economies of the world." Wait a minute-- these are the same people who insist on every other day of the year that the United States should not throw its weight around, "exploit" other countries by buying cheap goods from them, or even use oil at all.

If hypocrisy was a felony, we'd be locking up a lot of leftist talking heads right about now.

I watched a report on the matter on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, which included the Kerry quote. Glowering at OPEC was not the only thing Kerry suggested, though. It was only his first point, out of three.

"Number two, we should stop momentarily filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, so the supply to the country is higher which brings price down." Nice try, Senator. That very same program segment informed me that a little over 100,000 barrels a day is going into the reserve, which is a mere 0.5 percent of the oil the US uses every day.

"And finally there are 300 separate jurisdictions about additives in gasoline across the country, that raises the price of gasoline. If we were to simplify those rules and regulations, which we could do, we could lower the price of gas in the United States of America." On this third point, Kerry is absolutely correct. Except, I suppose, that simplifying government crap is always easier said than done. It's been said before. Good idea, though.

Cold War Thinking

Before the war on Iraq, I heard the argument that since we had been fairly friendly with Saddam while he was fighting Iran and murdering Iraqi Kurds, that we had no moral grounds for complaining about how terrible his regime was. Of course, that was twenty years ago, and an example of Cold War thinking on our part.

There is a common misperception that the Cold War wasn't a war-- but it was. Many lives were lost in the titanic struggle between "us" (the United Sates and the rest of the Free World) and "them" (the Soviet Union, China, and their puppets)-- a struggle for nothing less than the future of the world. The Soviets already ruled the various republics of the USSR with an iron fist, and had expanded their empire into Eastern Europe. The presence of US troops in Western Europe prevented the Soviets from making another land grab there after WWII, but the stage was set for confrontations elsewhere.

There was a catch, though, as explained by Steven Den Beste in an article which is mostly about North Korea:

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, both sides in the Cold War recognized that any time there was a direct head-to-head confrontation between the two sides there was too great a chance of ultimate catastrophe. So the majority of the hot battles in the Cold War were fought by proxies on at least one side, with one side perhaps being publicly and formally engaged and maybe even using its own troops, while the other side offered support to its proxy without being directly engaged. Both sides in the Cold war would smile and nod at one another and publicly pretend they weren't really quite having a war, sort of.

Of course, the use of proxy nations dated back at least to Korea. We were engaging Chinese troops directly, but at least it wasn't the Soviets, so that was "OK." We knew that there were Russian pilots flying in the Asian wars, but we looked the other way. As long as we weren't shooting at Soviets, as long as Soviets were shooting at Afghan rebels armed by us, and as long as their proxies-- several Arab nations-- were shooting at our proxy-- Israel-- then everything was "fine." The struggle could be carried out diplomatically and militarily at the same time. It was the way the game was played.

In Europe, the political situation was polarized on either side of the Iron Curtain. Naturally, the Soviets exported their authoritarian system to the Eastern Bloc countries, and we fostered democracy in the West. In the proxy nations to be used for fighting, though, neither side was incredibly picky. Most proxy nations were authoritarian, and therefore more like the Soviets, but few put up statues of Lenin. The flip side, of course, is that we didn't insist on statues of Thomas Jefferson. As long as a nation was vaguely stable, and somewhat interested in fighting designated enemies, then we could do business.

I recall the early radio reports of Iraq invading Kuwait back in 1990. It seems there was some confusion among Americans, who believed that Iraq was our friend, and Iran was our enemy (and the seemingly similar names didn't help, for most people). I heard from the radio, though, that Iraq was never really our friend-- just the enemy of the enemy. Simplistic, but descriptive.

Yes, the Cold War strategy was an unsavory means to an end. The question for the anti-war people is this: don't you want the US to rise above that era of Machiavellian manuvering? Allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by guilt would ensure that nothing useful is ever accomplished. Now that I think about it, though, complete paralysis isn't quite what the "anti-war" forces want. Many of those same people did want us to intervene in Liberia-- reasoning that since that country was set up by the US back in the 19th century, it's somehow our responsibility to fix the current situation.

So let's get this straight-- past involvement with Saddam's Iraq is supposed to rob us of any moral authority to set things right now, but much older involvement with Liberia necessitates US action. Nation-building in Iraq-- which is somewhat industrial, and possesses the world's most exportable natural resource-- is wrong... but theoretical nation-building in Liberia-- which has civil war-- was supposedly imperative. I'm sorry, folks-- while it is possible to export domestic unrest, the receiving country generally doesn't pay you for the favor. Iraq actually has something to build upon, and I cannot sufficiently stress the importance of that attribute when choosing which nations to build.

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Congresscritters

Last week, I found myself becoming angry at certain Congresspersons who were displayed on my television. It seems that the omnibus energy bill includes language protecting makers of the gasoline additive MTBE from lawsuits with regard to groundwater contamination, and this has some of our elected officials on the warpath. Apparently, they care more for their trial lawyer friends than they do for logic.

'Yesterday,' Kim du Toit blogged about the matter, thus reminding me that I, too, am a blogger. I needn't settle for hurling objectionable phrases at my TV.

For my research, I went right to the source. From the EPA website:

MTBE has been used in U.S. gasoline at low levels since 1979 to replace lead as an octane enhancer (helps prevent the engine from "knocking"). Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. (A few cities, such as Denver, used oxygenates (MTBE) at higher concentrations during the wintertime in the late 1980's.) Oxygen helps gasoline burn more completely, reducing harmful tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles. In one respect, the oxygen dilutes or displaces gasoline components such as aromatics (e.g., benzene) and sulfur. In another, oxygen optimizes the oxidation during combustion. Most refiners have chosen to use MTBE over other oxygenates primarily for its blending characteristics and for economic reasons. [snip] Unlike ethanol, MTBE can be shipped through existing pipelines, and its volatility is lower, making it easier to meet the emission standards.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically require oxygenated molecules to be added to gasoline in "areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution," resulting in reformulated gasoline (RFG). Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) is the compound used to satisfy this requirement for 87% of RFG, according to the page referenced.

This stuff has been in our gas since 1979. The amounts of it used were increased drastically in the 1990's, in direct response to Federal environmental legislation. And the makers of MTBE aren't even the people who spilled it. Perhaps, then, these so-called "leaders" could explain how suing the makers is remotely fair. Next thing you know, they'll want to sue gun manufacturers because of what someone did with the product. Oh, wait-- they already want to do that.

Well, at least I haven't heard about a lawsuit being brought against kitchen knife manufacturers, on account of involvement in a fatal stabbing. If that ever happens, I don't think I'll be able to retain my policy of not swearing on this site. No, not nearly.

Knowledge Problem links a comprehensive selection of articles with regard to the energy bill. Check it out, if my little tirade piqued your interest in this piece of legislation, which defines "omnibus" as an adjective for a bill with a lot of stuff in it.

Democracy for Everyone

Last Thursday, President Bush gave a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, advocating freedom and democracy for all areas which currently lack such-- but especially the Middle East. It was reported by CNN and FOX News (speech and Mid-East reactions). I found out about it from this segment on PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The speech was written about at Insults Unpunished, USS Clueless, and Setting the World to Rights while I delayed.

Like the speech itself, I will also focus on the Middle East. That said, I'll let the Prez start us off:

Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best" -- he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.

Two things leap out at me. Firstly, I wonder why the expert in question believed democracy in Japan would 'never work.' Japan had a functioning, if tragically flawed, parliamentary democracy for decades before WWII. Secondly, someone was worried about the future of German democracy in 1957?! This underscores that pessimists can be wrong, and that things in Iraq are proceeding much faster than our previous adventures in imposing self-rule by fiat.

Back over to Dubya:

It should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America. More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments. They succeed in democratic societies, not in spite of their faith, but because of it. A religion that demands individual moral accountability, and encourages the encounter of the individual with God, is fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of self-government. Yet there's a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has -- and I quote -- "barely reached the Arab states." They continue: "This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development." The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.

There is this notion floating around, that Islam is incompatible with freedom. That's silly. Most monotheistic religions don't go out of their way to support sovereignty of the individual, but religious Americans of all stripes manage perfectly well. Oh-- and in addition to the good old US of A, Muslim men and women are also good citizens of Israel. Put that in your anti-democracy pipe, and smoke it.

Bush's assertion that it is poor economic policy which causes stagnation, rather than culture, is supported by a convenient example. France, of course, is part of the culture of Western Europe. But by adopting a policy of Socialism Lite (tm), France is floundering while other European countries like Spain and Ireland are thriving.

As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy. [snip] As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.

We understand all too well that change doesn't happen overnight. Gradual, top-down democratization is better than none at all, as I always say. OK, so I can't recall having said that before...

And finally:

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.

That pretty much explains the War on Terror for all to understand. As for Western nations accomodating oppressive regimes all over the world... well, that's a topic for another day.

Update: I managed to finish off the discussion of Bush's speech. That bit I wrote about Cold War thinking will be back, in a later article.

Update: Conveniently, that bit I wrote about Cold War thinking came back, in a later article.

Democracy in Action

I undertook my civic responsibility, yesterday. No, I didn't beat up a purse snatcher two-thirds my age. Instead, I voted.

Only in local politics will you see a candidate with both Democrat and Conservative party endorsements. Of course, agriculture is Orleans County's number one industry. Out here, even the Democrats raise cattle and hunt deer. That's a generalization, and I know it. Somewhat more factually, the Medina Journal-Register reports that, based on voter registrations, Republicans outnumber Democrats 2-to-1 in the county.

Incidentally, I know a lot about raising cattle, and almost nothing about hunting deer.

Some of the races were uncontested; no doubt this is common in local politics. The most important races seemed to be for two seats in the county legislature. I am pleased to report that the candidates I voted for-- one incumbent, one newcomer-- were victorious. As it happens, both gentlemen are friends of mine, so they'll be getting an earful if I feel my votes were misplaced.

Not that the legislature has the freedom to make bold policy moves. This is the great state of New York, after all, so local governments are saddled with more unfunded mandates than you can shake a voting lever at. Ah, well...

Once I was the King of Spain

Jose Maria Aznar, the President of Spain, was in New York on Tuesday on account of the UN General Assembly business. While he was there, he sat down for a conversation with Charlie Rose. I took notes. As best I can determine, no transcript is available, so most of the key phrases I wrote down are not exact quotes. Then again, he was speaking through a translator, so they wouldn't be exact quotes anyway...

Elected in 1996, and re-elected in 2000, Aznar has presided over excellent economic progress in Spain-- and he took over from a socialist, to boot. He claimed that Spain has the 'most growth' and highest employment in Europe (or possibly just among counties using the euro-- I wasn't clear on that), and even has a balanced budget.

Aznar said that he would like to see Europe be successful and powerful, but in cooperation with the US. His favorite phrase thoughout the interview was 'Atlantic relationship.' He said the same thing later in Florida, as evidenced here. "There is no serious alternative ... to the stability of a relationship between Europe and the United States," he said, adding that it was "compatible with the development of Europe." This stands in stark contrast to certain other European heads of state, who seem to think that Europe must oppose the US in order to be relevant in the world.

I don't believe that Aznar so much as mentioned another European nation or leader in a negative context, which speaks volumes about his character. He did note that it seems to be simpático in Europe to criticize the US, because 'people like to pick on the big guy.' He further explained that when Great Britain (or Spain) was the most powerful nation in the world, it was generally unpopular. Whoever has to be responsible for world stability, he said, must deal with not being popular. The President of Spain said that the United States is responsible for the stability of the world. Think about that.

Spain has been an unwavering ally in the war against global terrorism since before 9/11. Then again, they have had their own problems with Basque terrorism, so that attitude shouldn't come as a surprise. President Aznar took some flak for his support of the war in Iraq, but said that 'I have my convictions,' and 'sometimes political leadership requires you to go against the flow.' This echoes an earlier joint press conference with Tony Blair after the end of major hostilities. "A government may have to take difficult decisions, but they always have to think of everyone's security and safety. That is something that citizens, in the end, understand."

He defended the timing of the Iraq war, explaining that the 'last chance' means the last chance, not the second to last chance-- or the one before that. I couldn't resist printing that phrasology, but he probably said it better at a joint press conference with President Bush before the war. "What I want to say is that if Resolution 1441 states that it's Saddam's last opportunity, that means that time cannot be long, because the last opportunity has already been given to him. What we have to verify now is whether he has disarmed, or not. If we now said that time was infinite, it would be a laugh. It would be very difficult for anyone to take us seriously, beginning with the United Nations. That would be the worst possible message we could send for peace."

Aznar noted that certain world leaders had been known to complain that the US did not intervene in the middle East, only to complain again when it finally happened. Furthermore, he feels that Europe is more at risk from terrorism and instability in the region than the US-- being geographically closer, for one thing. What he didn't go out and say is that France really ought to be more agreeable to reforming the Arab world, because France is close to the action, and has a large and growing Muslim minority. Helping democracy and freedom become part of overall Islamic culture should be high on France's to-do list, if the country wishes to avoid a violent future.

What Aznar did say, though, is that 'you solve your problems when you look them in the eye.' He spoke of 'shouldering responsibility,' but I forget the exact context. On the subject of responsibility, Aznar declared before his re-election that he would not seek a third term. He said that some people were slow to believe it, because in the past they had been told things-- and then the reality was quite different. Bear in mind that he took office only two decades after Franco, and memories like that tend to stick with you for a while. Aznar said that he has no plans to seek election to anything when his term ends next year, and stuck to that no matter what Charlie suggested (the UN, some other international body). I forget what he said he wanted to do, but it's definitely not politics.

I was greatly impressed with this man. He refused to insult people who disagree with him, but articulated his own views well. He leads, as opposed to ruling or pandering. He wants the world to be a better place.

If only everyone was nearly as responsible.

Reliving Election 2000

Since it's election season again, here only 14 16 months before the actual election, I hear more people talking about how el presidente G.W. Bush is illegitimate, or stole the presidency, or whatever phrasology. With the exception of foreign idiot dictators-- who are simply attacking the US-- these complaining people are Democrats, and they therefore assumably wish that Al Gore had won.

This view doesn't consider the obvious truth that if Gore had been declared the winner, then the same cloud of illegitimacy would now be hanging over his head. Actually, it would probably be worse, since Bush won on the first however-many counts. The Republicans would be whining that the Florida Supreme Count had given the election to Gore, and making very pointed accusations about recounting until the desired result was achieved. It would be a lot like it is now, only with the roles reversed... thus, the Democratic complaints are an interesting variation on the old pot-kettle scenario.

Update: Apparently, a year consists of twelve months. Now that I know that, I can properly calculate the time before the election.

Organization of Worthwhile Nations

What? You're supposed to update these "blog" things regularly? Oh. My bad.

I came up with an incredibly clever notion a while back, and the recent issue of the UN asking the US to foot the lion's share of the bill for fixing up UN headquarters couldn't help but reignite my thoughts on the subject.

The US should found the Organization of Worthwhile Nations (OWN), and invite every country in the world which upholds "life, liberty and the pursuit of property." (Kudos to Kim du Toit for the pursuit of property idea.) Coming up with a few members to list is an easy task: Canada, Britain, Israel, Japan, Australia, South Korea and Mexico spring to mind right off the bat. The question becomes, though, just how "good" a country has to be before we let it in? We want to help somewhat marginal nations improve their lot, but not dilute the overall goodness of the organization. Libya and Cuba will definitely not belong to OWN anytime soon. Hopefully, Iraq will qualify before too awfully long.

When I initially thought of this plan, I just assigned the name "League of Nations That Are Worth a Damn." During the planning for this posting, I decided to come up with a shorter, more accessible name. The first thing that came to mind was the "Organization of Worthwhile Nations." I then checked to see what the acronym would be... "Oh double-u en... what's that spell? OWN? Oh yeah. That's a keeper."