…and there was much rejoicing.

We are never leaving Afghanistan.

It has recently come to light that there are massive deposits of just about every thinkable mineral necessary to support modern technology. Lithium. Iron, Copper, you name it. The value of the resources is nearly 1 trillion dollars (over 83 times the value of the entire Afghan economy).

Risen makes note of two major concerns that come along with this massive discovery: the likely resurgence of warlordism and the doggedness with which the Chinese are going to pursue contracts within the country. The former promises to re-energize the Taliban and fracture the tentative alliances the American military has been working to coordiate for the last 2 years. The latter promises the exploitation of the citizenry and their lands to about the fullest extent possible. Development may allow for some Afghans to find menial jobs, but, as was the case with the USA throughout the 20th century, it is unlikely that foreign multinational corporations are going to improve the well-being of the people. Pollution, land seizures, and exploitative labor practices are all serious potential threats. 

Something Risen leaves out in the article is the effect this discovery will have on America. Afghanistan presents another ground for the Sino-American showdown. If you thought we’d been too involved in Afghanistan before, look out. Even if the spiking tribal warfare works itself out and the Afghan government begins running fair elections and the people are fully represented and the government finda a way to use the minerals to promote a general rise in the economy, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that America will leave the country any time in the forseeable future. We’re not going to cede influence in a country that could potentially make us even wealthier.

We are never leaving Afghanistan.

Maass presents an excellent global perspective on the BP oil spill, highlighting the unnoticed environmental atrocities on the hands of other oil congolomerates and calling for a move away from oil-dependence. This seems a common refrain from those with an interest in seeing an energy independent America sooner rather than later.

But do not forget that a BP boycott has local ramifications as well. Gasoline sales are not by any stretch of the imagination the only thing keeping BP in the black. In fact if you read over these figures, you’ll notice that the company in the last three years has made more in “operating activities” than their net profits. The real strength of a major oil company lies in its capacity to refine, not distribute. Boycotting BP gasoline is in effect boycotting the local businessman or woman who owns the station.

In the wake of COP15, I think it’s important to draw a little attention away from the political ramifications for Obama and the stubbornness of China. The real issue, as Klein frames the argument, is the results for the least developed and most vulnerable countries: namely the countries of Africa.

A global increase in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius equates to a 3-3.5 degree increase for the African continent. Increases that substantial in a country just beginning to take steps toward modernization could prove disastrous. Millions may be displaced. Agricultural industries, already struggling because of mismanagement in places like Kenya and Zimbabwe, may collapse completely.

African leaders adopted a very strong tone before the meeting, but fell flat when it came to standing up in Copenhagen. The walk-out was a bust. The leader of the African climate negotiating group started making concessions as soon as he arrived. They simply did not take a hard enough stand, considering the grave dangers facing them. All of the attention was sucked away from them because of in-fighting amongst the richer countries.

The story of COP15 is one of American hubris, Chinese defiance, and European marginalization. Africa got $100 billion for the next ten years to shut up, and they fucking took it. Not all of them. Some are still trying to speak up like Archbishop Tutu, but there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the content is going to turn around any time soon.

I’m not sure if it was naivety or if Zenawi got bought off, but the 10 billion dollars a year for the next decade looks to me like a slap in the face. The worst part of it is the domestic price the US will pay for it. I’ve already heard some very pointed criticism from the right of Obama for giving the Africans money at all. The frame of the debate has already been set as “Should we help the Africans (through aid) improve their standard of living at a cost to ourselves or not?” This completely misses the point. The whole point of COP15 was to try our damnedest to reverse the problems that may befall us all on climate change. We shouldn’t be setting up a Help Hundreds of Millions of People with Peanuts Fund. We should be fully investing ourselves in making this a non-issue. Making a climate change dichotomy between the African charity drive and the struggle to wrestle China into doing anything we ask destroys any chance at solving the problem.

All week Obama has said he’d rather come home with something crude and nascent than come home with nothing, but for Africa Desmond Tutu puts it best. “It’s better to have no deal than to have a bad deal.” This climate deal is awful. It makes climate change an even hotter button issue, politicizes common sense measures to preserve our future, and sells Africa down the stream.

My prediction: This is not the end of attempts at global cooperation, but it is the last time China or the US will have any shred of credibility in the discussions. Their clash may draw some media attention, but within the decade, Brazil and India and the strongest voices for change in Europe will have to carry much more of the burden to get anything legitimate done. I don’t think we can rely on the two top producers or their victims to lead the charge on anything soon.

Lieberman is a scumbag.

I’m a little late to this story. I’ve been away from Politico for about a month now, and it appears that was not the best decision. In Mitt Romney’s latest opinion piece, he lays down some very heavy criticism of President Obama. And, no, we’re not talking about charges of socialism or a secret religious history. Romney sets out a couple of key points that I’ve been frustrated with myself for this second half of Obama’s first year in office.

First, Obama has thrown too much of his attention to politically murky and unnecessary projects of reform. energy policy and health care reform are tremendous issues that effect a lot of people, but they most certainly should not take top priority when our country is both

• occupying the two countries of Iraq and Afghanistan
• in the midst of the greatest financial pitfall since the 30s

I may not agree with Romney’s proposed solutions to these two problems, but I certainly cannot disagree with him about their importance.

Second, Obama’s careful consideration of the situation in Afghanistan before last night’s announcement of troop deployment, appears to me to be incredibly indecisive. I understand that there are pressures from all sides, but military decisions aren’t the kind of thing you can go on a whirlwind town hall tour about. You have to sit down with all of the information at your disposal, and figure out the best use of American resources. Romney would argue the troop deployment has been a long time coming. I personally feel Afghanistan lost all legitimacy when the most recent election was riddled with fraud, clearly revealing the domestic rejection of their own government. But I think we would both agree that taking this long to come to a decision is disheartening.

It may be too early to begin considering the 2012 Republican Party nominee, but I think Mitt Romney may have learned a lesson or two from 2008. He’s shaping up to be a real voice of reason outside of the petty fights in the Capitol.

A quick note on the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed controversy.

I’m not going to pretend to have any extensive knowledge of Lashkar, but this article helped to fill me in on the details of the tragedy that befell India just over a year ago. It’s definitely worth the read.

This isn’t meant to be a full censure on the current Republican Party or any current legislation, but the Republicans hold up on their mantle the prize of producing Abraham Lincoln. After Lincoln died, an age completely dominated by bearded men of the Republican Party dawned. I thought it’s be interesting to take a closer look at the one Democrat elected among all of those Republicans, the only president to have been elected to non-consecutive terms, Grover Cleveland.

Working against a fully Republican congress, President Cleveland seems to me to have been quite a staunch proponent of limited government, going so far as to veto aid for veterans with disabilities to discourage reliance on the government.

He overrode unions’ position during 1894 Pullman strike with federal troops, allowing railways to come back on line in Chicago. He uprooted corruption and was a staunch advocate for the gold standard.

These all sound like incredibly conservative positions. Here’s a copy of his veto on the Texas Seed Bill (a bill proposing $10,000.00 be spent in an effort to lift Texas out of a drought). I took the liberty of highlighting a particularly interesting passage.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill number ten thousand two hundred and three, entitled “An Act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor.”

It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people’s needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed-grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has, to some extent, already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of ten thousand dollars additional to meet their remaining wants,will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of senators, representatives, and delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is one hundred thousand dollars, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our senators and representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.

What I find in the writing and behavior of Grover Cleveland is a voice advocating constitutionally limited government in the midst of a firestorm of government expansionists and silver standard enthusiasts. Perhaps before latching on to the party of Lincoln, it’s important to look at what the other side was advocating. Franklin Delano Roosevelt forever changed the face of the Democratic Party, but it’s important to know what the face looked like before his alterations.