The only way...
One thing that I've noticed about the environmental 'debate' surrounding oil usage and foreign oil is that it seems to center around reducing oil consumption. Nobody talks about the exchange that oild companies have and that there is no way to boycott a single provider of oil. As it turns out, the only way to eliminate foreign oil is to eliminate oil.
I hear that if only we could get a 30mpg average nationwide we could give up foreign oil! That would be true if we simply stopped trading oil as soon as we were within the limits of our national production. The oil industry is private though, and will try to get the cheapest oil they can. Guess where that comes from? It's not local!
It used to be (meaning until VERY recently) that they only way you could stop using oil, at least for transportation, was by riding a bike or living in California. Alternatively, you could find a person to convert your car to electric or do it yourself.
In recent years though, electric car production has taken center stage. The Chevy Volt, Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf, and Aptera coupe are all soon to be available. Nearly all of them are affordable too! (I'm talkin' to you Chevy) You have to take the cost of operation into account when you look at these vehicles as well. Equivalent fuel cost for an electric car is roughly ten cents per gallon so calculate that savings over gas per month. Also remove oil changes from your budget. for me that's an extra 100 dollars per month. So I could afford a payment of up to 100 dollars more per month, which raises the price of the vehicle I could buy.
That said, some of the vehicles, like the Nissan Leaf, will be priced more like a Honda Civic to begin with, so it's all savings.
It's not just fuel...
It's not just oil to burn that costs us. It's millions of plastic products like plastic bags that must be eliminated. Chico Bags, Flip & Tumble, and ecoBags all provide replacements for shopping bags, produce bags, and various other bags. Drinking straws are made from stainless steel, polycarbinate or glass and are dishwasher safe.
Bottled water likely doesn't use recycled plastic either. Use a stainless steel bottle with filtered water instead. In any case before you use a plastic product, look for ecoFriendly alternatives.
Remember, the only way to eliminate foreign oil and make America more secure, is to eliminate oil. At least the kind you have to drill for.
By Padmini Arhant
The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s visit to the Indian sub-continent is a topic to discuss in different context. It’s obvious that the United States engagement in Afghanistan tied with the success of the Zardari-Gilani government presumably involved in eliminating the mayhem in the northwestern region by the Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces after substantial autonomy from the less credible previous military rule of the President Pervez Musharraf.
Despite the severe domestic economic crisis, the continuation of U.S. financial and military aid to Pakistan is an enormous investment of U.S. trust and resources in the nuclear Pakistan.
More information @http://www.padminiarhant.com
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Straight from blogules (following "Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada" and "Khamenei's death wish" ):
We begin with an email letter from a friend=advocate for the DR Congo to web-editor Franklin Katunda:
Hi Franklin,
I saw that you are advocating for the Congo and enjoyed reading what you wrote. I lived in Goma, DRC, and worked with HEAL Africa (www.healafrica.org) for two years. It is an organization started by a Congolese orthopedic surgeon and has over 200 Congolese on staff. There are four of us here in the States now working for HEAL Africa and getting the word out about what our Congolese colleagues are doing amidst war. I also saw that you mentioned Friends of the Congo and they are one of our partners here in the States. I will actually be moderating a panel at their event this Sunday after the performance of the play "Ruined" in NYC. You can find more info here:http://www.friendsofthecong...
Anyways, just wanted to make the connection. Hope that you are doing well and continuing to spread the word about the hope and potential in the Congo.
Take Care,
Harper
harper@healafrica.org
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response from Franklin
Thank you so much Harper for what you are doing in the DR Congo, helping with the Congolese surgeons.
I will be publishing more and will share it with Organizing for America" members of my group. President Obama said during the campaign: " We are the change we have been waiting for", and I strongly believe it is as we move forward with the foreign policy agenda of our country towards Africa in general and the DR Congo in particular. The US-Africa foreign policy was too long tainted while dealing with the conflicts in Sudan and the DR Congo. We were not able to help resolve these conflicts for too long.
President Bush supported for the past 4 years term, a Rwandan president whose troops invaded a sovereign country (the Democratic Republic of Congo). Kagame spoke at a DC press conference, called by "Voice of America" government radio that " it was necessary" for Rwanda (his troops) to go into (invade) the Congo", because he believed his own people, "Hutu tribe members" who found refuge in the eastern province of Kivu (DR Congo). According to him, the hutu were preparing attacks in Rwandan territory (which never happened).
Since the invasion of the DR Congo, Rwanda curiousely produces and sells minerals such the 3 T's and other gold, diamonds they don't produce(officially). Most of their shipments started their journey from the Congo's cities (where the war takes place) in route these convoys head to Kigali International Airport, Rwanda where they are cargoed overseas to Asia, Europe and US corporations. Supplies from the Congo's war zones help manufacturers make electronics components, jewelry and weapons...
Kagame = Saddam Hussein as far as being a terrorist; he is also a war criminal and a sponsor of terrorism in DR Congo. The only difference in between the two is that the later invaded Kuwait, was punished by the US, and removed by force. The first one has been a friend of the Bush administration. He is still in power even after he invaded the DR Congo, he always had a free pass from the US, even after a UN account established his troops raped and killed many and caused the mass killings of thousands of inoncent civilians in Congo's cities.
Madam Secretary Clinton and President Obama should be held accountable in the way they will enforce the senate-enacted policy in regard to the DR Congo; i'm talking about the S-2125 Senate Bill on Security, Devevelopment and Governance in DR Congo; Activists have to push a pressure and checks, as far as to see if they (the administration) will be diligently helping to stop this humanitarian disaster, the violation of human rights and human dignity.
We, supporters of the campaign that elected President Obama have a solemn obligation to establish a "check-and-balance" on the current administration and Congress in order to change our foreign policy towards Congo and Sudan. I said it before: the appointment of Johnnie Carson at the State department's african affairs, the appointment of a new US ambassador to China, was, to my sense a key to enleash a new strategy in dealing with instability in these two countries in which China has strenghten diplomatic and economic relationships. Sudan welcomed chinese businesses at an increasing level, while the chinese entrepreneurs are road and infrastructure builders in the DR Congo. Where is the United States "economically" and "strategically" in these countries?
How would the Obama administration through its State Department engage China in regards to Sudan and Congo? How would Clinton deal with strong-tied US corporations that are playing the same role as China in these countries economies? What is the fine line between opening business deals with governments of Sudan and Congo that are violating human rights?
The Sudan's region of darfur and the Eastern Congo's conflicts have been out there for too long. It's time to end them by obtaining a firm commitment from China to play a crucial role to substantiate our cooperation and aid to sound governance, and observance of human rights.... America needs to turn the page on its past mistakes dealing with Africa. Secretary Clinton should really take advantage of her trip to Africa and really come back with a clear differentiation between the Continent as a whole and its Respective Nations (52 countries) , its economic realities, our interests within each one of them, and the geopolitics and various cultures Africa has. Those who committed crimes should not be in power, they should be prosecuted in court, and the Obama administration should acknowledge the ICC (International Court) for its role in doing just that in Africa.
We are watching this 11 days trip to 7 African countries: (KENYA, SOUTH AFRICA, ANGOLA, DR CONGO, NIGERIA, LIBERIA AND CAPE VERDE)....Not a mention about RWANDA and SUDAN amazingly...but happily Cape Verde long time ignored, Cape Cerde has been on the growth's path and has observed sound democracy... This small African island-country with powerful lobbying immigrant networks in most American cities. Nigeria and Angola's economies deserve support from the US and conflicts in Kenya and DR Congo should appaul the world and South Africa should be teamed up with to help prevent HIV/AIDS and apply some better application models in prevention in other African nations as well.
I'm Franklin Katunda, an Obama surrogate and I approve this message.
Check my latest news article on the DR Congo news at www.congoboston.com
That frank assessment from Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California, has resonated loud and clear from the island of Cuba -- 90 miles from the southernmost point of Florida -- to the halls of Congress.
For the first time in nearly 50 years, relations between the two nations, which has a history steeped in tension, have seemed to ease a bit.
And that was no more apparent than this week, as a delegation from the Congressional Black Caucus traveled to the communist country on a fact-finding mission, with plans to deliver a report to the White House.
What is bias in the middle east conflict? [March, 2009]
Arabs’ racist killing (specifically) Jews *, is accepted “freedom fighting’'.
Israelis worried of Arab terror *, branded as “racists”.
*
War crimes, crimes against humanity by Palestinian Arab leadership - regime in Gaza * * * of using Arab civilians, making sure their kids die, for the “greater good (Jihadi-fascism’s goodness) of making Israel look bad…” * * * * * * *, using hospitals *, schools, UN medical vehicles * *, even aid material sent by humanitarian Israel * for murder, targeting at Israeli civilians, - shoved aside, ignored *.
Israel’s humane army’s extreme measures not to hit civilians (including 250,000 warning phone calls to Arab residents to evacuate a particular area designated to be included in an op., knowing full well terrorists can cease the opportunity and flea, as well as risking young soldiers’ lives in going door to door) * * * * aiming only at Hamas terrorists is denounced of “random shooting” and “war crimes”.
[Arab led pressure forcing Israel to conduct] Uprooting Jews from their homes and their ancestors’, AKA Transfer * * AKA Arab Palestinian Apartheid * is “good for peace”.
Transfer of Arabs (who don’t have more than 2 or 3 generations of history in Judea / Israel / Palestine * * * *) is “apartheid, fascist and racist” * (AKA Avigdor Lieberman).
While Hamas or even “Moderate” Fatah refuses to recognize Israel *, international aid is flowing their way.
UN is “busy” condemning Israel * * on whatever is being told (forced) by the global Arab Muslim oil lobby.
Terrorists - justifier Rashid Khalidi has a "new" book - yet he's the same old "average Arab racist"
Rashid Khalidi (on c-span 2, books) (Author: 'Sowing Crisis') wants us to believe that Islamic republic of Iran is "not" linked to the terror organizations: Hamas, Hezbollah and that these groups have "legitimate" concerns.
Desperate as he is to act as if he's on a 'research' row and making a show of someone who's really "looking at the region from a broader angle", he did talk at first quite smoothly, dancing around and mentioning "other" problems we the USA have (supposedly) created in the region, like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran (no, he didn't mention Carter's role in indirectly overthrowing the Shah, that led to the current Islamofascistic totalitarianism), you almost thought that Rashid might really be an academic, in the real sense of the word.
But as an average Arab Muslim "academic" he can never escape his burning Arab-racism against the Jews, though polishing his way to the maximum, he had to come to his essential venomous point, all in all, his punch line is really, the same old hateful cliche theme, "It's all Israel's fault", especially towards the end, when he was asked some questions, you could see how he was "lit" as if by a switch that turns on the Arab "moderates" hatred flames - they can never seem to resist, and fall into it each and every time.To his credit, most Arab propagandists are less patient... you don't have to wait even that long to see their outbursts.It was a small room, filled by either Arabs, or the gullible, one Arab "American" journalist is even a brazen open Jihadists-Hamas-Hezbollah supporter, none has asked about his propaganda statement that Iran fears Israel's nukes - as a "reason" for why they might be pursuing nuclear weapons, no one has asked the obvious: Did (democratic) Israel ever threaten to wipe out (oppressive) Iran like the Islamic fascist genocidal Republic did? or did Israel ever attack Iran like Iran attacked Israel via Hezbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad?
Never mind his Pro-Jihad statement defending Hamas, Hezbollah, portraying them as "political" movements with "concerns", and no one was refuting him - pointing to the true nature of these Jihadists that openly declare their real goal - to erase Israel.If you were to turn in towards the end, all you could hear is repeated word "occupation", more than a few times... (as you know), all crimes under the sun are all washed by this excuse, used by the children of Arab immigrants, (that have invaded the land of Israel - "Palestine," since the 1800's), and is being heard by him, as by any Arab "journalist" like a spiral.
_______________________
Related:Khalidi's New Book and Old Story http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/03/khalidis-new-book-and-old-story.html
Solomonia Archive: Columbia Watch: Rashid Khalidi On the other hand, this is Rashid Khalidi, and he does represent Columbia ... .http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/009032.shtml
Rashid Khalidi's Appointment at Columbia University...http://www.danielpipes.org/1234/rashid-khalidis-appointment-at-columbia-university
Jan 20, 2009 ... Hamas's Academic Cheerleaders [incl. Hamid Dabashi, Rashid Khalidi, Fawaz Gerges, Joseph Massad, Muqtedar Khan, Mark LeVine, et al.http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6708
Camera-Ready Victims [incl. Rashid Khalidi]: Hamas practices human sacrifice; the world shrugs. - Campus Watch.http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6622
My small business was in the brink of bankruptcy failing miserably during Bush era, but since President Obama took over it became an overnight success, my sales jumped from an average $20 a day to over $200 a day, last 5 weekends my daily sales were $600; what a great improvement my outlook for future is brighter now with full of confidence I waited patiently and now my boutique will not bankrupt, what a relief that is!
I look forward to hearing from all concerned readers of my blog please feel free to share your stories & comments, have a bright & wonderful day!
by Rabbi Arthur Waskow 01-29-2009
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/01/29/beyond-gaza-an-abrahamic-peace/
Beyond anguish, what can we say about the massive death and destruction in Gaza and the traumatic fear of falling rockets in Israel? How do we shape not just the temporary palliative of “cease-fire,” but a true alternative? Not just in pretty theory, but in political practicality?
The Obama administration could start by insisting that the Israeli and Egyptian governments open the borders of Gaza to shipments of food and medicine and fuel, while improving the prevention of importing weapons. At the same time, it could refuse to supply Israel with white phosphorus and other weapons that the Israeli government illegally used against the civilian population of Gaza.
But such changes –- only the beginning –- will not happen without public demand for change from a new political alliance inside the U.S. and a new nonviolent campaign by Palestinians, Israelis, and Europeans.First of all, Palestinians could change reality on the ground by mounting vigorous, assertive, nonviolent resistance to the blockade/embargo. In the weeks just before the invasion of Gaza, small boatloads of people were bringing food and medical supplies to Gaza, ignoring or violating the Israeli blockade. After the invasion began, two more such boats were forced to turn back by the Israeli Navy.
These “ship-ins” were building support in much of the world, pointing out the injustice and violence of the blockade. Instead of canceling the cease-fire and firing rockets once again, Hamas could have turned those boats into a multitude. They might have built an enormous popular pressure in Europe and the U.S. for an end to the blockade and negotiations between Israel, the various powers, and Hamas.
Even now, with or without support from Hamas, European doctors, academics, clergy, political leaders, and peace activists could sponsor a flotilla of “ship-ins.” And Palestinians who live in Israel and in the allegedly “annexed” East Jerusalem could start blockading Israeli roads in a strictly nonviolent way –- not even stone-throwing. They could and would be joined by some Israelis.
Such an effort to challenge in a new way the assumptions behind Israeli power could galvanize a new response from the world at large –- even from the United States. But even if such a nonviolent campaign does not emerge, there are the beginnings of a more conventional approach to peacemaking.
Any effort to heal the wounds of the Middle East must include the Palestinian-Israeli relationship but cannot stop there. For years, the Arab League, led by Saudi Arabia, has proposed a regional peace settlement that would bring peace to Israel in exchange for the recognition of a new and viable Palestinian state. The Israeli government, with support from the U.S. government, has ignored the proposal. But for many Israelis, this would actually be the fulfillment of the dream of a secure and peaceful life.
Can an Israeli government now say, “We are ready to join in these negotiations”? We are ready to deal with a new Palestinian government of national unity that includes Hamas, which obviously has considerable strength among the Palestinian community. For us the deal must include only very small symbolic numbers of Palestinian refugees returning to Israel itself, and control of the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem.
Perhaps now, after the Gaza invasion, any Israeli government can do this and say that they have not rewarded terrorism, are not negotiating from weakness, have shown they can be bloody. But would they want to? That would require a deep rethinking because it would mean a serious commitment to ending the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as the blockade of Gaza. Settlers and other opponents of doing this, though fewer in numbers than those who will support it, will be much more intense in their opposition. So the government is likely to be paralyzed, refusing to do what is necessary for peace, resorting to old slogans and the institutional and cultural power of the military to justify paralysis.
So the necessary counterweight for this domestic paralysis will have to come from outside -– that is, the United States. Appointing George Mitchell, the weaver of the Irish peace settlement, as peace envoy to the Middle East is an excellent start. But it will mean little unless the U.S. adopts a whole new policy toward the region.
The alternative policy for the U.S. government would be to use the disaster of Gaza to insist on a regional Middle East peace conference; to insist that even a Netanyahu government of Israel and even a Hamas leadership of Gaza or Palestine take part and accept a decent peace; to connect the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq with serious diplomacy with Iran and a political settlement of the Afghan agony; and to move swiftly off the fossil fuel addiction that drives a planetary disaster and drives American policy into corruption or conquest in the Middle Eastern oil pools.
Only the biggest response can meet the need. Half-measures, the normal response of governments facing complex conflict, will not work.
And what might make such a break with automatic U.S. policy possible? The presidency of an unusual person chanting “change” is not enough. There are only two clusters of power in the U.S. with enough passion about the Middle East to matter. One is Big Oil. The other is the ethnic and religious passion of American Christians, Jews, and Muslims. If sizeable parts of these groups could work together for such a policy, it might be possible.
For many Jews and Muslims, that is even harder now than it was a month ago. But for others, the shock of so much blood has already brought about unexpected alliances -– and could make it possible.
At the grassroots in some American communities, some Jews have joined with some Muslims in local demonstrations calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. The peace-oriented American Jewish organizations might be willing to take their previous positions one step further. They might be able to work with American Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and others to press the new administration toward a grand peace.
The building blocks for such a coalition now exist. Can they be mortared together? A roused Muslim-American community, not yet well organized for political action but speedily getting more so; the beginnings of an independent base in the Jewish community (Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, J Street, Americans for Peace Now, The Shalom Center, the Israel Policy Forum, Tikkun, Jewish Voice for Peace) that could draw strength from the majority of real live American Jews – who support such a result but whose politics are unvoiced by the big American Jewish organizations; mainstream Protestant groups that are raring to go and will be effective if they can focus on changing U.S. policy instead of parading their own personal purity as in the divestment campaigns, and if they have Jewish allies so as not to be accused (or accuse themselves) of anti-Semitism; a vague Roman Catholic support for the same result, which might be stimulated into action; black community support, pro-peace and ready to affirm Palestinian self-determination, but so far not focused on this issue because there are other urgencies and they feel the need for Jewish allies to address those urgencies; and non-religiously or ethnically identified progressives, if they can get over their habit of treating the word “Zionist” as a curse word and start clearly condemning terrorist attacks on civilians by the underdogs, as well as military attacks, occupation, and blockade by the uber-dogs.
The effort to shape such a Grand Abrahamic Alliance should begin now.
Rabbi Arthur Waskow is director of The Shalom Center, which voices a new prophetic agenda in Jewish, multireligious, and American life. He is co-author of The Tent of Abraham: Stories of Hope and Peace for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, as well as the author of many books on Jewish thought and practice and U.S. public policy.
Stephen Zunes wrote this article as part of A Just Foreign Policy, the Summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine. Link: http://www.yesmagazine.org/other/pop_print_article.asp?ID=2683
Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is possible悠sraeli security and Palestinian rights are not mutually exclusive, but rather each is impossible without the other.
The Palestinian Authority and virtually all the Arab states are now on record expressing their willingness to recognize Israel and to provide security guarantees in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands conquered in the June 1967 war. This would leave the Palestinians with just 22 percent of historic Palestine. Nonetheless, the U.S.-backed Israeli position is that the Palestinians should be allowed an independent 都tate・on even less territory and only in a series of non-contiguous cantons surrounded by Israel and with the Israeli government controlling the air space, water resources, and the movement of people and goods.
Unlike some earlier periods in Israel痴 past, the country痴 survival is no longer at stake. The Israeli military is far more powerful than any combination of Arab armies. Despite the threat of periodic shelling and suicide bombings from Islamic extremists, most Israelis are relatively secure within their country痴 internationally recognized borders. Where Israeli soldiers and civilians are most vulnerable is in the occupied Palestinian territories. In these areas, illegal Israeli settlements and roads 650;eserved for Jews only幼reate an apartheid-like situation, and make it extremely difficult for Israeli forces to defend against a population angry at the occupiers who have confiscated what is often their best land. Israel would be far more secure defending a clearly defined and internationally recognized border than an archipelago of illegal outposts within Palestinian territory.
It is the ongoing Israeli occupation and colonization of the West Bank, along with the siege of the Gaza Strip, which creates the hopelessness and desperation that breed extremist violence. Only when the occupation ends will the threat from Palestinian terrorism finally have a realistic chance of being controlled.
U.S. policy in this troubled region has become increasingly controversial, but it should not be criticized as being too 菟ro-Israel.・U.S.-backed Israeli policies are not only jeopardizing the human rights of their Arab victims, they are hurting Israel痴 legitimate interests as well.
撤eace・proposals that allow Israel to annex large swathes of occupied Palestinian territory様ike those the Clinton administration pushed at Camp David in 2000 and the Bush administration has been supporting subsequently幼annot provide rights or security to either side. A truly pro-Israel policy would maintain the U.S. commitment to the security and well-being of the Jewish state, but would insist that Israel end its occupation, withdraw from its illegal settlements, and allow for the emergence of a viable, contiguous, independent Palestinian state.
This may require that the United States apply pressure 768;uch as withholding military and economic aid擁f the Israeli government continues to violate its obligations under international humanitarian law. Such aid does not help Israel much anyway. Indeed, most of the more than $2 billion in annual 杜ilitary assistance・to Israel amounts to a credit line to American arms manufacturers and actually ends up costing Israelis two to three times that amount for personnel, training, and spare parts. The additional $2 billion in U.S. economic aid is little more than the interest Israel is required to pay American banks from loans for previous arms purchases.
Many of those in Washington who call themselves supporters of Israel are supporting Israel痴 hawks who are making the country more dependent upon the United States. This increases Israel痴 vulnerability by preventing it from recognizing its natural alliance with the world痴 Afro-Asian majority. Within Israel, there is a solid progressive minority that supports the necessary compromises for peace and a similar-sized militaristic minority that does not. Most Israelis are in the middle and, as Israeli scholar and peace activist Galia Golan describes it, 典hey will lean left when Israel is feeling pressure from the United States but lean right in situations like today when there is no U.S. pressure.・
The combination of Israeli technology, Palestinian entrepreneurship and industriousness, and Arabian oil wealth could result in an economic, political, and social transformation of the Middle East. This would be highly beneficial to the region痴 inhabitants, but not necessarily to powerful U.S. interests who benefit from the current policy of divide-and-rule. An Israel at peace with its neighbors would be far less likely to be willing to serve as a reliable ally in support of U.S. hegemonic designs in this critical region.
If the United States really wants to be a friend of Israel, the U.S. government must apply some 鍍ough love.・This would entail unconditional support for Israel痴 right to exist in peace and security, but with an insistence that Israel uphold its international obligations and withdraw its settlers and troops from the occupied territories. Only then can the violence end and peace become a reality. And only then will the United States be a true friend of Israel.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, where he chairs the Middle East Studies program. He is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage, 2003) and a member of the advisory board of the Tikkun Community. www.stephenzunes.org
