Your articles stop

Nirmala Deshpande is a name, which does not require any introduction. A widely acclaimed social activist Nirmala is one of the flagbearers of non-violence in our country. Born in 1929, she joined Acharya Vinoba Bhave’s Bhoodan Padyatra in 1952, and covered more than 40 thousand miles touching all nooks and corners of India. She has been the president of Harijan Sevak Sangh, founded by Mahatma Gandhi. In 2005 Nirmala was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize and in 2006 she was awarded with Rajiv Gandhi National Sadbhavana Award. She has been working in troubled areas of Kashmir valley for peace since long. Currently she is a member of Rajya Sabha. Nirmala Deshpande talked to Santosh H K Narayan of Headlinesindia on various issues ranging from politics to Naxalite movement in India in an exclusive interview.

“Freedom struggle has to go on and it is going on.”- Deshpande

How much relevant is the ‘Gandhian Value’ in the present scenario?

Nirmala Deshpande: We know that UN (United Nations) has declared the Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday — October 2 as an International Day for Non-violence. It reveals that not only India but the whole world recognises Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy. His actions and programmes are becoming more and more relevant for the contemporary world.

But it is seen that in India, we are neglecting him in each and every aspect.

Nirmala Deshpande: I think, it is the perception of those who are metro centric (Urbanites) . Go to rural areas and countryside, you would come across a general change in perception. I have been to almost all places in India and discovered that Gandhi is becoming more and more relevant. His principles have influenced the people there. You will very well find it if you visit rural areas.

Actually, I was talking about the government policies.

Nirmala Deshpande: Why are we so much concerned about government policies?

Because we are a democracy.

Nirmala Deshpande: No. People are supreme in democracy. Government has a role to play. But it’s the people who shape the country; the society and I can talk about the people who are fighting. We have to follow his (Gandhi’s) ideas and philosophies in order to solve many of our problems as well as shape the way of life that leads to peace and harmony. Government is trying to follow many of his ideas, eg employment guarantee scheme. The idea is to help the poorest of the poor and those who are not much qualified. They also have the right to live. Right to live with dignity. Such schemes really give a kind of instrument to the people to live a better life. Well, I agree with you that many areas are underdeveloped but I will also say that it’s not the government but the people who are responsible for that. We as social activists find that wherever our friends try to mobilise people for the implementation of polices properly, we get very good results. So government plus social activists have to work together. And I am very hopeful that in the near future, these schemes would be properly implemented.

But if you see at the other side of the story, big companies and corporate houses are coming in large scale to grasp what was considered as profession of poor, like vegetable and retail marketing. We have seen disturbances in Singur and Nandigram.

Nirmala Deshpande: Well, there are different streams of life altogether. That is also there what you said is happening. But I would like to assure you that those who are working with people are very much hopeful to assert a dignified life for them.

It means that you are justifying what people did at Singur and Nandigram.

Nirmala Deshpande: I would only like to say that whatever policy the government is bringing should be implemented in a proper way and will be implemented. I would also like to tell you that some policies are not in tune with the people. And it has to be changed. Now who is going to change? It is the people. In a democracy, it is the people who have the last say.

But if we look into the 60 years of our independence, the fate of our people has not changed much. So called poverty line is not practical.

Nirmala Deshpande: As far as the independence is concerned, much has been done and a lot more is remains to be done. Gandhiji said that we had achieved the political independence but we have to achieve social and economic independence and it is more difficult task. Working at the grass root level is very difficult but we don’t have other way left. We have to do that for changing the way of life of the people. Participation of people in that process is necessary. We, social activists, are just a facilitator. I would like to give you an example. In Vidarva, Maharastra there were suicide case by farmers. Some of our friends met representatives of people in that area. They facilitated the meeting with the Prime Minister and he was very sympathetic and immediately went to villages and talked to the people. He announced a package for them last year. But we know, very less reached to the people. We did not stop there. We continuously worked in the area with local social oraganisations. Bhave, Shivajee and other cooperatives are already there in that area for training,awakening and organising the people and we find that there was a tremendous change in the attitude of the people. We have organised presentations in every Tehsils and people decided that they would not leave their rights and change their future.

It was a tremendous change and I can give one more example. We organised camps on Tehsil level and one marginalised lady farmer heard that government was giving Rs 185 for each family but she was getting only Rs 120. She straightway walked to the Tehsildar and enquired about the amount. He replied that 185 is given. She told that the Patwari gave me only 120. We would not tolerate this injustice and would take our rights, she said. You know, what happened then? The Tehsildar immediately send the Patwari to the village and he apologise for his deeds and assured that she would get Rs 185. It happened when people organise themselves, assert themselves. Officials have to change. They are changing. If you go to the people organise them for good reasons you can see good results. If you don’t do anything and only criticise them then what will happen? Nothing.

Another piece of legislation is RTI Act. In Muzzafarnagar district of UP, our young friends organised people at grass root level and now on the basis of RTI they are able to achieve what they want.

This is the input coming from the people. But I wanted to know that how much competent is our political system ?

Nirmala Deshpande: If the people will take the initiative, the entire political system and other setups will have to change. Who is making the change? It is not the so-called political leaders but it is the people. Gandhiji mobilised the people, the common man and British were forced to leave.

Do we need another freedom struggle?

Nirmala Deshpande: As I told you, Gandhiji said that freedom is not complete. We have got political freedom only. In 1947 he used to say that what we achieved was a part. Battle is still on. Freedom struggle has to go on and it is going on.

But irony is that we have to fight against our own people now.

Nirmala Deshpande: Yes. That is more difficult. But we have to do that. But the means should be non-violent as the country has to realise that and in fact it is realising. As a social activists, we can only say that if you follow non-violent means, the target can be achieved.

Do you relate these things with Naxalite movement?

Nirmala Deshpande: You know, Vinoba Bhave was Mahatma Gandhi’s spiritual successor. He started Bhudan Andolan and for the some extent I was part of it and walked with him. In days when Bhudan was succeeding 40 lakh acre of land was acquired. At that time you could see the decrease in violence. However, down the line, we could not continue that tempo. We all are responsible for that and then Naxalite movement started. But I would like to tell you that I am a friend of Naxalites. They are fighting for the rights of the people but it should be with non-violent means if it has to succeed. I have been telling this and exchanging my views. Sometimes, some of them join us but it is a big challenge. I am still hopeful that Naxalite leaders and cadres who really want to change the society will realise that a revolutionary change can be brought only by non-violent methods. I am quite hopeful.

Like Maoist achieved in Nepal.

Nirmala Deshpande: Yes. I would like to tell you they are also my friend. I told them that please don’t take arms. When will you succeed? When you organise a peaceful movement. In 90s, in Kathmandu they organised a peaceful movement and they succeeded. Only peaceful methods crop success. And now I am very happy that they have joined the Parliament and let us hope that with other friends of Nepal they will be able to solve the problem together. They will be able to give justice to the poor and the Naxalites of India would take a cue from them. They may also start thinking about that. I hope so and pray for that.

How much do we care for our monumental history? Like we have seen such a drama on Gandhiji’s letter.

Nirmala Deshpande: No drama. It’s the media who made it a drama. In fact, it was not a letter. Thousands of Gandhiji’s letters and his hand written manuscripts are safely preserved. One or two such stolen writings finds the way to auction house but it’s a stolen property. In the past also we had succeeded in getting them back and this time also we succeed. By and large whatever Gandhiji has written are safely preserved.He used to write extensively. He wrote so much in his last days. He used to write on small pieces of paper and give it to typists with instruction to type and destroy the paper. But the typist somehow kept some of these papers with him and tried to sell them some ten years ago. Then he was told that it was unethical. Gandhiji in his will has clearly stated that “Although I don’t have any private property but there are books and manuscripts written by me should go to Navjeevan Trust”. So, if somebody else has got it then he is a thief. But thank God, the person understood and gave back the letter.

So, that manuscript is coming back?

Nirmala Deshpande: It was published in ‘Harijan’ in English. I have a copy with me. So, it will definitely come back to India. There is no problem as such. If some thing from some body’s house is stolen, then how are you going to recover that? Those who are custodian of Gandhian ideology as well as the Government of India should adopt Gandhian mean of persuading. They don’t have right to auction it and last time also we have succeeded and this time we will succeed in getting it back.

If we talk about other monumental icons like we are observing Taj hysteria now?

Nirmala Deshpande: India is a big country and there are many things that need to be preserved. Government is doing it in the best possible ways. But it is also our job to preserve them. Let’s do our job. We together can preserve everything. It should be a joint venture.

Do you support such type of hysteria created by media?

Nirmala Deshpande: Let’s me be very frank. Our media is not playing a proper role. Media is neglecting positive things. It always digs out the negative things and highlights them. Lots of good work has to be done. How many of you go and see Nehru Museum? Thousands of Gandhiji’s letter and manuscripts are being preserved there. People have donated themselves. But nobody knows about that and nobody wants to know. But one stolen thing creates such a media hype.

One thing has become very controversial now. Presidential election…

Nirmala Deshpande: I am not a politician. I am out of it. I am a Gandhian. Ask me anything about that.

As a citizen, how do you think that such a type of mud slinging…

Nirmala Deshpande: I don’t want to say anything. I am busy with my own business. Mud slinging is always bad. One should maintain ‘maryada’ (dignity) in public life and ‘laxaman rekha’ should not be crossed. It applies everywhere.

In such a type of political scenario, how Gandhiji would have reacted ?

Nirmala Deshpande: If Gandhiji would have been here today, you would not have had such scenario. Binova Bhave said in darkness you have to face many problems. But as soon as the Sun rises the whole darkness is vanished.

What are your further plans for the society?

Nirmala Deshpande: We are doing every thing, what one can do. Today ( July 6) is the birth day of His Holiness Dalai Lama and lakh of trees would be planted. Our friends in from all over India are doing that. We have started a signature campaign for Aung San Suu Kyi for her release. The message has gone to the people. In a short period of time we are expecting to collect 10 lakh signatures.

We have seeen that some parts of our country are lagging behind like Jharkhand, Bihar, Orissa. And Naxal problem is on the rise there.

Nirmala Deshpande: In some areas people are not enjoying the fruits of growth. These are neglected areas. We have to concentrate more on such areas and we are trying to do that.

Are you persuading the government for that as a Rajya Sabha member?

Nirmala Deshpande: Both. I have collected 1500 signatures of my fellow parliamentarians and urged the government to change its policy for those areas and implement it.

At present, what ever our political system is, are you satisfied with that or would you like to change it?

Nirmala Deshpande: Of course we are for a change; we are for revolution. As a Gandhian we want to bring revolution but by non-violent means. We don’t want this system to continue. Not at all. But who would bring the change? Its the People.

And for what?

Nirmala Deshpande: For better, peaceful, harmonious and just society.

Will you suggest any framework for the change?

Nirmala Deshpande: We have a framework. It is evolving. The revolution is going on but I must say that media doesn’t have time and mind to see these good things happening. Lots of pople are doing good work. We are moving ahead.

But I was talking about parliamentary system.

Nirmala Deshpande: Parliamentary system has its limitations and the system also needs a change. But who is going to bring the change. Again, the people. People are the instrument to change the system.

But people’s voice is being suppressed.

Nirmala Deshpande: No. People’s voice is heard and has to be heard.

It is right. But we saw last year that some politicians tried to derail this RTI Act.

Nirmala Deshpande: It may be but the bill was passed and it is an act now. And those who wanted to take an advantage of that, are taking.

With life becoming materialistic and government adopting policies leading to commercialisaton with the every passing day, do you think it is going to change.

Nirmala Deshpande: It is changing. It has to change. You might have heard about Social Forum. The movement is bringing a new hope. Another world is possible. We are not happy with this world. We want to change it. It is prevailing all over the world. It is a beginning. When the bombings started at Iraq, huge peace marches were out in New York, London, Paris, Kolkata, Rome. People walked all over the world. ‘Say yes to peace, say no to war. No blood for oil.’ Those were the slogans. But all by peaceful means. And New York Times had to write an article as its editorial that after the disintegration of Soviet Union, only one super power was left. But now another super power is emerging. That is world public opinion for peace. The editor saw this people movement as another super power. It is in the making. It is people who took the initiative and oraganised themselves. They are trying to do some thing and make their voice heard. So the movement of people is becoming a strength. Slowly but surely it is going to become a super power and it can change the whole world.

Kashmir is an important issue between India and Pakistan. Whatever the ongoing process may be, do you suggest any solution that could be the win-win situation for both?

Nirmala Deshpande: Well, solution will emerge. I worked in Kashmir. The people there are peace loving. They respond to a call of peace and Gandhi’s thought. I am quite hopeful. I think something will emerge from the dialogue process.

Do you want to say something on Jehadi groups. Like we saw Glasgow bombing plot and many others and some particular groups are being targeted.

Nirmala Deshpande: As His Holiness Dalai Lama wrote to US President after 9/11 that in Buddhist philosophy there is no effect without a cause. So, why this happened? Try to find out the cause and remove that cause. That is same for all those Jehadis and militants. Everybody knows whatever activities they do but why they take such an extreme step, that the whole world is yet to find out. There is some injustice somewhere. Like what happened in Gujarat five years back. There is hardly any justice given to victims of Gujarat. Who is responsible? Extremists have to be condemned but we have to find out the reasons behind.

In that way we can say that ‘Gandhian Value’ is in jeopardy. Jehadis are taking violent roots for the sake of their considerable demands.

Nirmala Deshpande: We believe in non-violent system but have not been able to convince them to not to take violent methods for their demands. But in Kashmir, you will find extremists who have discarded guns and taken peaceful means to protest, to express their feelings. The change is taking place in Kashmir.

On the other hand if we take the example of Suu Kyi and Dalai Lama, their efforts are not bearing fruits.

Nirmala Deshpande: It will take time. Do not go by timetable. We fought for more than 150 years for our independence. So they have to fight for a longer time. They will also get justice. Those who believe in non-violence are quite sure about that. Those are ought to succeed but when? We don’t know. We have to continue the struggle and remain hopeful.

Aruna Roy is a social activist who is best known for her endeavours for betterment of the rural poor in the state of Rajasthan. In 2000, she was awarded with the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership. Her continuous campaigns were instrumental in enactment of the Right to Information act -2005. She was as a member of the National Advisory Council for two years, where she helped and advocated the passage of the Right to Information Act and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Her contribution to the cause has been widely acknowledged. Here is an Exclusive telephonic interview of Aruna Roy with Santosh H K Narayan of Headlines India on contemporary socio-economic issues.

Very recently you met Sonia Gandhi highlighting the issue of tribal and poor peoples land. What was the outcome?

Aruna Roy: I met her along with a delegation- which included many campaigners from ‘Janadesh-2007′, which is at present the main focus of our activity. At least 25000 people are marching from Gwalior to Delhi, demanding a land reform policy from the government. Land should be given to the tillers at the earliest. In the National Common Minimum programme the UPA government had promised that people would get their land and their livelihood would be ensured, therefore we went to ask the UPA Chairperson that there is a commitment made by this government and it should be honoured. So, in principle, she accepted our claim, but regarding the formation of a land policy and the commission to execute it, she told, she would be talking to the Prime Minister. The PM has already been provided with the papers related to the matter. We requested her that there should be some immediate announcement by the government after due consultation with civil society groups and activists by the time the ongoing march (Janadesh-2007) arrives in Delhi. But Sonia didn’t make any commitment.

As you said tribals and poor farmers are marching towards Delhi. What are the targets they are aiming to achieve?

Aruna Roy: There are no targets as such. They have certain demands. Janadesh- 2007 is a fight for the right to live and livelihood. Their demands include that the land should remain with its tillers. Farmers who own land today should be given a commitment that it would not be taken away from them. For all those who have been alloted land only on papers, should be given the actual position of the same. People who got land at the time of Binova Bhave and subsequently during Indira Gandhi’s period still own their land on papers. Violence against those who go and cultivate on their own land should be checked with immediate effect.

Land reform policy should be such that it ensures security and livelihood of thousands and lakhs of farmers in this country. To what extent will Pepsi, colas and Macdonald’s will replace farming in this country? Farming is an activity which incorporates many things. It is a employment programme; a self-reliance programme. You just can’t take profit-loss account everywhere.

We can witness a continuous struggle going on by farmers and tribals fo rtheir rights. What do you think are the main reasons for that?

Aruna Roy: The main reason for it is the non-implementation of of land reforms in many states. Over the last decade and a half, there has been a paradigm shift as far as uasage of land is concerned. Earlier, there was less pressure on land, hence, there was less of problem too. But in last 3-5 years, the emphasis over the commercial usage of land has shifted towards acquisition and privatisation of land. Corporate farming and private farming is being insisted upon. The banks don’t allow small donors to have any kind of special subsidy which they earlier had before. If you follow the line drawn by the international financial organisations, then Indian farmers cannot have any subsidy, but ironically, farming in US , Australia and Europe can be subsidised. Every single cow is subsidised in Europe. In that context, people are getting alienated from their lands and livelihood. Thus, it becomes imminent than ever before that the interest of 60 per cent of Indian population be protected.

There has been international pressure through WTO, IMF and World Bank. On the other hand we are also witnessing domestic pressure from big corporate houses to change the policies. Who is more responsible for the plight of poor?

Aruna Roy: These (domestic corporate houses) are part of an international community. Are not Indian corporates multinational? Even they are investing in various nations. Their nature is same. The Constitution says that we are a sovereign country and our representatives should follow our mandate. See, no body would say that India should not be developed and modernised. But, we should achieve it in indigenous way and with our own design.

We have seen changes in the government over time. Various political parties came and went. But the policies do not seem to changing. Do you think there is huge market pressure on the government- irrespective of the political party governing?

Aruna Roy: Who is taking the pressure. Are we not an independent entity? If we are, then to what an extent a government could be pressurised? Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize for economics. He says that we can’t have globalisation with inequality. If the developed countries say that they have surplus of money to invest in India, then we Indians have surplus of manpower. Let the developed countries allow our skilled manpower walk freely in their country. How can they expect us to do away with all the restrictions, while they continue with most of them.

Of late there has been furious actions by Naxals in many parts of India. They are against any kind of developmental activities being carried in backward areas. How can this approach be justified?

Aruna Roy: They were never protesting against all these 10 years ago. What was happening then? Where were all these developmental activities in these areas? Maoist and Naxal pockets are located in those areas of the country where there was no development and rule of law. Tribals were killed.Their land and resources were snatched. No body was there to listen to their voice. Now, the roads and electricity are being brought in these areas when multinationals are going to set up mines and factories there. Naxalism is the result of the loss of hope and faith in the system. These things breed Maoism, Naxalism and violence.

I can say as a concerned citizen of India that the impact of developmental policies and rule of law have failed in these areas. People do not want to live with violence. There have been repeated effort to deny the right of life to them. If you offer them a package and take a decision to treat them equally, only then the Naxalism can be cubed down. This menace has only a political and economic solution. Using of force against them is not going to do any trick. It will only increase India’s instability. We have seen the state sponsored violence like Salawa Judum. It is not a solution.

When human right groups raise their voice against such atrocities, then they are being captured and put behind the bars, for example Vinayak Sen. He is graduate from Christian Medical College and is a gold medalist. He established a big hospital at Raipur. But the state government put him into jail by terming him a Maoist. Those who talk about human rights and about the progress of the country in real terms are put behind bars. It is not an answer.

It is quite evident that most of our natural resources are located in the backward and tribal areas. Government is quite rightly saying that there is need of resources for the development of society. But by doing that the livelihood of tribal and poor fall in jeopardy. How can a balance be maintained between these paradoxes?

Aruna Roy: Have you heard about climate change and global warming? Have you hared about depletion of forest? Do you realise that incidents like Tsunami and Katrina cannot be isolated? Do you realise that poles are melting and sea level is rising? Ironically, the path of development our country is following is leading us on the same path. So the exploitation of natural resources should be done judiciously. It can’t be given to institutions, who are interested only in profit making. All the companies from abroad who are now making their presence felt in India have already destroyed their own environment. They will do the same even here.

Let’s put all this information in the public domain and have a debate. In the era of Gandhiji, all the issues were debated publicly with Netajee, Ambedkar, Nehru and others. Only then the final decision would be taken. The issues ranging from the amount of land that would be used for development; to the environmental damage done in terms of global warming, everything should be debated. Let’s analyse all the facts and then decide what is good or bad. And number two, the people who are going to be affected must be a par t of the debate. Not that you take a decision and then go and tell them that we have decided these things.

If you tell the rich people who are living in cities and have invested their money that the government is going to take their property for investing it in other development projects. Will they agree? In a democracy, it is the right of the people- whose land is being taken in the name of public purpose- to know what the public purpose amounts to. Just ponder over Maoism. I think it is a very clever ploy on the part of people who want to resort to violence. It is in their interest because once you declare an individual a Naxal or Maoist, you can kill him anytime! If some body says that ‘don’t take my land’ that person can be killed. Today, if you talk about your own land then you would be branded a Naxalite!

Capitalism is a fight for the private property. It says that there should be privatisation of everything. In that context the land of poor would also be a private property for some people.

Government is talking about food security, but poor and peasant are far from getting that and going even further away. How should the governmental policies be redirected to ensure the food security?

Aruna Roy: Firstly, let the farmers and tribal have their land. Secondly, ensure financial stability to them. Provide them loans at the same interest rate that they were getting earlier. All the basic inputs of farmers should be made available to them. Only then the food security would be established. Because, there have to be production before you have food security. You can’t convert all your lands into mines; in industries, or use it in producing fodder for foreign cows and simultaneously, have the food security. We have to ensure production and provide employment to buy food security.

We have been encountering reduction in farm produces, especially in the form of after affects of the Green Revolution. Do you think, there is a need to have a second Green Revolution, although with a different flavour?

Aruna Roy: I emphatically believe that there is lot of traditional wisdom in India, which have always been ignored. What we must do at this stage is, to have a complete introspection on agriculture. People here are practicing farming from time immemorial. There are farmers who have been maintaining the available resources since then. We destroyed those in 50 years. So the fault is not with the farmers, but with foreign technologies, which does not considers land as a resource. It does not deal with the protection of that resource. People and technology which nurtures trees and forest, protect the land, uses the rivers without polluting them should be encouraged. People still have such measures available with them. One has has to reach to them. But if only one sided agenda exits, then there is no future.

Numerically, India’s GDP is growing at the rate of 8-9 per cent. If it is, then how can it be utilised for the betterment of the people who are at the lower strata?

Aruna Roy: 8 or 9 per cent growth is alright. But what does it means in real terms? Whether it is going to increase private income and interest? We would like to know exactly what does it mean. We would like to know the breakup of this GDP growth in terms of building government resources. Unless this will go up, benefit of this GDP will never reach to the larger section of the country. It is government and its policies which is directly responsible for the state of the people. Private companies can’t be forced to do these things (developmental).

So, do you want to say it has ‘failed’?

Aruna Roy: I don’t say that. But nothing much has filtered down to the people. I don’t see any village getting road, electricity and school due to this high rate of growth. In fact people from rural areas are migrating to live in urban slums. If it doesn’t happens, then this growth will have some meaning.

You have been very much attached with RTI, personally. What is the difference this law has made in the day-to-day lives of a common man?

Aruna Roy: I think RTI, in real terms, has made a phenomenal difference. Two-three things which it has done are remarkable. The first and foremost one is that it has democratised the people in a better way. If you don’t demand answers then the people, who are at the helm of affairs, would not be reigned in and then everything would be snatched and sold. This fact has been understood by many. Recently, Habibullah (Chief Information Commissioner) had convened a meeting of Information Commissioners of all states. In this meeting, it was known that thousands of applications are coming from the people of Maharastra for information. But other states are not maintaining even the records. So the government is not doing its duty, people are doing. Commission is sandwiched in between. It does something and leaves something. In spite of that, RTI is one important legislation which has given us hope. See, before this, we were knowing that many things are going wrong, but we didn’t know how to ask for that information, how to ask for accountability. This law has paved the way for maintaining accountability.

Now something on a personal note. You left a powerful government job and came forward to work for people. Do you think that the type of administrative setup we have, is producing hurdles in transparent functioning?

Aruna Roy: The basic changes can’t come under the government. Administration is there to maintain the status- quo. But bureaucracy is also needed to run this country. An honest and accountable bureaucracy is necessary. We have wrong assumption in India that if one per cent of bureaucracy works properly, then the whole country would change. I feel that there must be a democratic and accountable system everywhere. Bureaucracy has a role but perhaps we give too much of hype to it.

Is it not because we adopted the bureaucratic setup made up by Britishers and did not change or modify it according to our necessities?

Aruna Roy: That is quite true. We did not want to change it, because if the common people occupy the position then what would the powerful people do. The condition is even worse now (than British rule).

Some Friendly Economics For The Nuclear Energy Booster Club
by: Velimir Lackovic

I would like to begin this brief exposition with a bizarre fairy tale that was confected by two well known energy experts, Amory Lovins and Joseph Romm, and published in Foreign Affairs (1992-93), which is the prestigious journal of the (United States) Council on Foreign Relations. It goes like this:

“For example, the Swedish State Power Board found that doubling electric efficiency, switching generators to natural gas and biomass fuels and relying upon the cleanest power plants would support a 54 per cent increase in real GNP from l987 to 2010 - while phasing out all nuclear power. Additionally, the heat and power sector’s carbon dioxide output would fall by one-third, and the costs of electrical services by nearly $1 billion per year. Sweden is already among the world’s most energy-efficient countries, even though it is cold, cloudy and heavily industrialized. Other countries should be able to do better.

I called that statement completely wrong the first time I saw it, while in my new energy economics textbook (2007) I suggest that it and similar contributions are misleading bunkum. For example, there are a number of questions that must be answered in detail before biomass can unambiguously be classified a large- scale fuel of choice for the near or distant future. As for renewables such as solar and wind, and probably hydrogen, they will undoubtedly increase in quality and quantity, but it will not be at the expense of nuclear.

As David Schlageter pointed out in the important forum EnergyPulse (2008), “Renewable energy sources only supplement the electric grid with intermittent power that rarely matches the daily electrical demand.” He continues by saying that “In order for an electric system to remain stable, it needs large generators running 24/7 to create voltage stability. Wind and solar generation are not on-line when needed to meet energy demand, and therefore to help decrease system losses.” In the promised land of wind energy, Denmark, voltage stability is attained by drawing on the energy resources of Sweden and Germany (and perhaps Norway). The Danes pay for the imported electricity, but not for the stability.

Every member of the nuclear booster club, to include myself, should make it his or her business to memorize the quotations in the previous paragraph, because they provide an excellent contradiction to the tiresome delusion that it is economically feasible to largely supplant nuclear energy with ‘renewables’. They also suggest why - with electric demand on the verge of increasing faster than supply in many parts of the world - more nuclear capacity is now scheduled for introduction than at any time during the past 3 decades.

Deeper Meanings

For those readers who have been exposed to secondary school algebra, the above reference to things like voltage stability is superfluous. Sweden and Norway produce, on the average, the lowest cost electricity in the world. Norway, however, generates almost all its electricity with hydro, which is generally recognized as the lowest-cost power source, while Swedish electricity is produced in almost equal amounts by hydro and nuclear. As I show in a forthcoming paper (2008), with this as a background, elementary algebra indicates that the unit cost of Swedish nuclear power is equal to the unit cost of Norwegian (and Swedish) hydro. This is not a welcome conclusion for many pseudo-scholars.

But what about nuclear waste, which is repeatedly portrayed as a malicious and unavoidable cost of nuclear based electricity because, ostensibly, it will have to be locked up for hundreds of thousands of years? An argument that is sometimes presented however is that the costbenefit of no carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from nuclear facilities. For instance, the International Energy Agency has calculated that for France - the country with the largest production of nuclear energy (as a per cent of the total output of electric power) - the average person is responsible for 6.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which e.g. is one-third of the U.S. average. of disposing of nuclear waste is balanced by the

The cost-benefit trade-off mentioned just above is probably worth remembering, however I prefer for students (and anybody else) to inform me that France intends to treat its ‘waste’ as a potential fuel, and to explain why. (A similar strategy has been proposed in the UK by their energy minister.) For that reason a law has been passed in France stipulating that toxic waste is to be stored in such a way that it can be comparatively easily accessed and recycled if, at some point in the future, “new” technologies appear which will allow it to be used as a satisfactory input in the nuclear fuel cycle.

The latter provision is, as the reader might guess, partially intended to appease or possibly bewilder nuclear sceptics, because technology is already available for recycling this ‘déchet’, and in the event that the price of newly mined and processed uranium escalates, it would almost certainly be utilized without further debate. Of course, as noted by many comments to EnergyPulse, few persons who work with or near uranium believe that there will be a shortage of this commodity in the foreseeable future, even if the forthcoming nuclear revival eventually assumed the dimensions of a Manhattan Project.

There are occasionally long discussions of the cost of nuclear relative to the cost of renewables in the technical literature. An item that frequently appears is the capacity factors of windmills and solar generators. In simple terms, the capacity factor gives the amount of energy (in e.g. kWh) that is actually obtained, as compared to that made available if maximum output (= ‘nameplate’ capacity x time) were realized. It appears that in the U.S. wind generation works at maximum efficiency about one-third of the time, but this is confusing. With capacity factors between 0.25 and 0.35, the energy actually obtained as a percentage of maximum energy is less than one-half for many long periods.

It might also be useful to cite some figures for the cost of nuclear relative to gas and coal. The Economist (July 9, 2005) presents estimates from several sources for average electricity costs. For German utilities the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) gives 1.5 cents/kwh for nuclear, 3.1-3.8 cents for gas, and 3.8-4.4 cents for coal. Similarly, they give 1.7 cents/kwh for nuclear in the US, 2 cents for coal, and 5.7 cents for gas. The International Energy Agency (IEA), employing a discount rate of 5%, argues that nuclear is $21-31/Mwh, while gas ranges from $37-60/Mwh. Other sources (e.g. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs) disagree, however I specifically make a practice of ignoring everything originating with the energy economists of MIT and the RIIA, especially the latter, and advise everyone reading this to do the same.

So much for cost, but what about price of nuclear electricity - especially to private enterprises and households? In the case of Sweden, the low cost of nuclear and hydro power, and fairly smart regulation, made it possible to provide electricity to the industrial sector at perhaps the lowest price in the world. This being the case, nothing is more offbeat than hearing about the “subsidies” paid the nuclear sector. Cheap electricity meant the establishment of new enterprises, and just as important the expansion of existing firms. The tax income generated by these activities, and used for things like health care and education, more than compensated taxpayers (in the aggregate) for any ’subsidies’ that might have been dispensed by the government.

An antithetical situation may prevail for wind and biofuels. In Germany the energy law guarantees operators of windmills and producers of solar energy an above-market price for power for as long as 20 years. This is an explicit subsidy, although it may be both economically and politically optimal due to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. More important, inexpensive electricity for plug-in hybrids is made available.

A more complex subsidy involves the exploitation of biofuels. Research newly carried in the United States, and reported in the influential journal Science, claims that almost all biofuels used today result in more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the pollution directly and indirectly caused by producing these ‘green’ fuels is taken into consideration. In addition, there would be a substantial loss of ‘consumer surplus’ throughout the world due to a likely increase in food costs. Some of the intricacies of this important issue have been examined on an elementary level by Clay Ogg (2008).

In these circumstances, it might be argued that France’s total acceptance of nuclear power makes a great deal of sense. As noted in the Financial Times (October 6, 2006), nuclear power has provided “an abundance of cheaply-produced electricity, made the country a leader in nuclear technology worldwide and reduced its vulnerability to the fluctuations of the turbulent oil and gas markets.” France can also supply some electricity to neighbouring countries, which helps counterbalance the short sighted and unthinking foolishness being promoted by the European Union’s directors and its Energy Directorate.

Strange Behaviour

I’m a social scientist, Michael. That means I can’t explain electricity, or anything like that, but if you want to know about people I’m your man.
–J.B. Handelsman in Cartoonbank.com (The New Yorker Collection, 1986)

My situation is somewhat different, Michael. I knew enough about electricity to work on power lines for the U.S. Army during a brief period, and later to design terminal installations for the U.S. Navy, but although I have taught social science (i.e. economics) in 14 universities, I am still unable to understand why so many people are willing to risk the economic futures of themselves and their families because of the drivel being put into circulation by persons with a psychotic hatred of technological excellence, although they are quite capable of enjoying its material advantages. Something to be aware of here is that the rich will never be without reliable and plentiful energy, regardless of its availability or lack thereof to the less fortunate. One of the reasons that they will never be without it is that they are fully aware of its importance.

Perhaps the clearest argument for nuclear power has been presented by Rhodes and Beller (2000), which is similar to the basic contention of this article. They say that “Because diversity and redundancy are important for safety and security, renewable energy sources ought to retain a place in the energy economy of the century to come.” The meaning here is clear, especially if you add that we probably will never possess what is known in intermediate economic theory as the optimal amount of nuclear power. But they do state that “nuclear power should be central….Nuclear power is environmentally safe, practical and affordable. It is not the problem - it is one of the solutions.”

Velimir Lackovic
http://www.energetika.co.yu

About The Author
Velimir Lackovic runs internet portal “Energetika” ( http://www.energetika.co.yu ) dedicated to renewable energy sources,oil gas and energy efficiency. Velimir has completed gratuadte studies in power systems engineering and has industry experiance of over 20 years in this field.

Read More Articles from the “Politics and Government” Category:

America: The Presidents, The Politics And The Wars
by Nick Carter

The Leo Wanta Saga, Pt. 15: Bush Stalling ‘At 12th Hour’ Wanta $4.5 Trillion Deal To Improve American Economy
by Greg Szymanski

India’s Supreme Court Temporarily Bars Approval of Genetically Modified Crops
by Dr. C Kameswara Rao

The Bitch, the Snow, and the Rapture! UK News Review
by Michael Knell

The Leo Wanta Saga, Pt. 20: Next Few Days Critical In Whether $4.5 Trillion Wanta Money Repatriated For Americans
by Greg Szymanski

Newspapers And Political Bias
by David G. Hallstrom, Sr.

Retiring
by Dennis Kemano

An Alternative to Nazism
by Andy Carloff

How To Really Save Planet Earth: A Test About Al Gore
by Jeff Popick

Americas Problems Foreign and Domestic – The Combined Speeds Factor
by Rev Michael Bresciani

<< Back to “Politics And Government” Index

David Stipp of Fortune has referred to climate change as “the mother of all national security issues (2004).” I see no reason to disagree, since as explained in my new textbook (2007), a peaking of global oil production in the near future could be labeled the father. Moreover, these are related, because when oil becomes less available, the use of coal will be drastically boosted, and among other Jeffrey Michel (2008) clarifies what this means. I also emphasize that one difference between a climate meltdown and a peaking of global oil production is that many readers of this contribution are certain to experience the latter; and although less traumatic than the former - should the former take place - it will not be the kind of rendezvous that Frank Sinatra described in those marvellous songs that accompanied our après ski revels at Courchevel and St Anton.

Unfortunately, when the topic is (presumptive) anthropogenic (or man made) global warming (AGW), we have a situation where politics and psychology play a role that cannot be ignored, which means that we cannot always call on altruism or logic to provide us with optimal guidelines. Increasing numbers of people are willing to sacrifice a modest amount of money and/or comfort in order to help keep the environment in a seemly condition, but when the bad news might originate dozens or hundreds of years in the future, of unknown extent, involving societies whose compositions are unknown, then taxpayers and legislators might hesitate to endorse even small expenditures. As Professor John Kay once pointed out, “the burden of caring for all humanity, present and future, is greater than even the best-intentioned of us can bear.”

It has certainly become greater than this humble teacher of economics and finance can shoulder. As a result I would be more than happy if formulating tactics and strategy that would be useful in the global-warming battle were taken out of my caring hands, and turned over to high ranking governmental officials - bypassing if possible mastodon conferences where the majority of participants lack a relevant technical background, and many would be perplexed by freshman mathematics at Boston Public.

For instance, a majority of the delegates attending the Kyoto talkathon (in l997) did not have the slightest intention to do the kind of reading and thinking that is necessary to comprehend the economic and political implications of global warming. I am certain of this, because serious people would have insisted upon immediate action, and under no circumstances would have welcomed the introduction of a measure as senseless as emissions trading. What most of those ladies and gentlemen were primarily concerned with was obtaining a ticket to the next global warming jamboree. Readers who want an important insight into this issue should refer to the work of the Carbon Tax Center where the many shortcomings of emissions trading are examined in some detail.

My side of the coin

My approach to global warming turns on some conclusions I absorbed when studying and teaching theoretical welfare economics and game theory: the basic issue is rationality! It has to do with whether voters and concerned politicians - or for that matter non-voters and political hacks - adopt or accept political and economic programs that are consistent with their ambitions in life, love, and the pursuit of money or power. As I have found out over the past few years, this is asking for a great deal. Instead, regardless of beliefs about the authenticity of AWG, persons who enjoy thinking that they possess something valuable to contribute to this debate are similar in at least one respect: they are vulnerable to systematic manipulation and self-delusion.

Too many AGW partisans want the main attack against climate problems to be carried out with renewables. They inevitably proclaim that nuclear energy is dangerous or relatively expensive, and they show an unreasonable tolerance toward half-baked schemes like emissions trading. I prefer to believe that crank convictions of this nature should be discouraged at the highest scientific and journalistic levels, since in reality they have been accepted by many politicians and civil servants only because of their political currency. For instance, the resort to emissions trading hardly deserves to be called “foolish simplicity”, which, as the Nobel Prize physicist Wolfgang Pauli added when he coined the term,” is beyond all help.”

Similarly, almost all the climate commentators working the wrong side of the global warming street are believers in the long run availability of oil and gas. Dr Björn Lomborg once stated publicly that oil will last at least 100 years. Actually, if it were close to a thousand it would make little or no difference, because the two basic issues here are the geographic distribution of reserves and the peaking of the world oil output, and peaking could - could, not will - take place during the coming decade. In other words, it makes sense to disregard the way that resource scarcity is generally treated in most of the academic economics literature, where despite the algebra readers are presented with a soap-opera rather than a scientific exposition. It should also be noted that in Stipp’s article the Pentagon plays the role of attentive observer to the climate warming drama, which suggests to me that any indication that oil production was peaking or about to peak would cause the lights to burn later than usual in that impressive structure. This is something we don’t want, because going to war for oil is not a healthy option.

The bottom line

In a recent letter to EnergyBiz Insider, a hard-core member of the denial lobby classified talk about AGW as an integral part of the international socialist conspiracy, following which he insinuated that placing limits on the emission of greenhouse gases would eventually lead to the placing of limits on economic growth. More surprising, some very intelligent technicians, engineers, businesspersons and commentators associated with the important forum EnergyPulse have called AWG a hoax, scam, nonsense, foolishness, etc.

I accept AGW regardless of what it is called, or by whom, because working to suppress greenhouse gases is perhaps the best approach to the installation of a new energy economy - which I regard as essential. I was also informed recently that 400 prominent “scientists” have put their names on a document saying that global warming is hogwash. What we have here is a farce similar to that in the U.S. presidential election in 2004, when a posse of “Swift Boat Captains” was rounded up to question the bona fides of Senator John Kerry. The difference between President Bush’s sailor supporters and the above mentioned scientists is that the former were actually captains, though seriously confused about the role of Senator Kerry in the war, while a majority of the ’scientists’ had as much right to that designation as citizens who received bogus titles at the masquerade balls held in Paris the night the Bastille changed management.

Some AWG sceptics are often cited in the journal Energy and Environment. A few of those ladies and gentlemen possess impressive academic credentials, although most of them belong in the same category as the foot-loose ‘boffins’ summoned to Dr Lomborg’s ‘Copenhagen Consensus’, and who - before proceeding to the marvellous Tivoli to drink beer - were provided with a bizarre opportunity to challenge the research of important physical scientists. As good luck would have it though, the gradual discrediting of Lomborg and a gallery of know-nothings and wannabees in other parts of the world means that even if real scientists are wrong about AGW, we could still end up with the energy system we deserve. The matter of who knows what where this topic is concerned has been examined by Barry Naughten of the AustralianNational University (2007).

It seems clear that to satisfy future energy requirements and to deal with (actual or hypothetical) AWG, a comprehensive portfolio of ‘green’ energy sources should be acquired as soon as possible: e.g. solar, wind, optimal amounts of biofuels, and perhaps hydrogen. In addition, according to Jim Beyer (2007), a more sophisticated access to and utilization of large amounts of methane is desirable. My focus though is on nuclear, because as far as I am concerned the solution to the distasteful energy dilemma that might be just over the horizon, as well as a partial solution to a possible climate calamity, is as follows: a base of reliable and comparatively inexpensive nuclear, on top of which is a large and variegated slice of renewables. Unfortunately, there would also have to be another non-nuclear bundle consisting of gas and clean coal, but its size and composition will have to be discussed by somebody else.

An example might be useful. In the Swedish city of Växjö, greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 30 by 2010. Careful attention to best practices technology and management, to include a large increase in biofuel consumption, is supposedly the key element in this program. But I suspect that another pivotal element is the large amount of energy produced in Sweden with e.g. nuclear, even if Växjö may not be a major producer or consumer of this energy source. As suggested above, Nuclear energy (and hydro) provide the base on which other constituents can display a maximum utility! In fact, if the Swedish government were friendlier to the friendly atom, a comparable success might be possible for the entire country, without stresses on industrial output and employment that could burden everybody. The point is that nuclear energy in Sweden has paid its own way! The flexibility inherent in very large amounts of electricity has meant higher employment, lower costs for energy intensive industries, less greenhouse gas, etc, and consequently larger tax returns to finance things like health care and education.

Let me emphasize that what we should avoid is an offbeat foundation of biofuels, wind, sun, ’small’ hydro, etc, in phase with a nuclear retreat, which is the goofy formula that hypocrites and deadbeats in Brussels (and elsewhere) obviously favour, and as far as I can tell could mean a drastic fall in the standard of living for many of us. As former Prime Minister Tony Blair indicated, even environmentalists should logically prefer nuclear to a decline in their disposable incomes. This might be one of the reasons why we now hear so much these days about a renewed interest in nuclear-based electricity, and this interest is conspicuous in virtually every corner of the industrial world.

According to Robert Frank (2006) in his important textbook, “if a single agency had the power to enact globally binding environmental legislation, it would be a straightforward, albeit costly matter to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases. But in our world of sovereign nations, this power does not exist.”

This conclusion can be adjusted. If a miracle had taken place, and the Kyoto delegates had specified that climate issues should be exclusively dealt with by heads of governments and senior civil servants from the major greenhouse gas emitting countries, meeting several times a year, we might already be in possession of optimal environmental legislation, instead of the sub-optimal trivia that was eventually cranked out. Moreover, the cost mentioned by Professor Frank might have been quite tolerable. As a bonus, observers like myself might have the satisfaction of knowing that the self-important climate vigilantes yawning and waffling at assorted talk-shops were denied the luxury of flaunting their tiresome amateurishness in international forums.

An adviser of President Putin once said that emissions trading was about making money, and not suppressing greenhouse gases. This should never be forgotten, because when that statement was made, the efficacy of emission trading was in doubt. This is no longer the case. It is a scam that will be perpetuated by, among others, the Nordic Electricity Exchange, whose ulterior purpose is to make fools of the lethargic voters and politicians who have come to believe that countering things like peak oil and climate warming with what amounts to a lottery can make their lives sweet and prosperous.

If you live in the UK, did the Earth move for you? The second biggest quake in UK recorded history has certainly been a talking point, hasn’t it? And perhaps never more so than for all the appreciative young ladies in the backs of cars in those quaking early hours who believed they had found the virile young man of their dreams, not forgetting all the wives at home who at the same time were questioning just where their husbands had learned to do something like that!

But all this was only a taster. The real Earth-moving experiences may yet be to come as the whole premise of global warming is under threat again. Despite all the spin, it seems the scientific world is still not in any overall agreement as to just how much man is actually responsible for influencing the climate - if at all. In fact at the moment many scientists and “experts” are racing to distance themselves from being associated with the whole idea of global warming.

Recent data has shown there have been record snowfalls worldwide - some in places, like Baghdad and parts of central Asia, for the first time in recorded history; North America has had the most snow cover for 50 years; China has suffered the lowest temperatures in over a century; both icecaps have thickened, with Arctic sea ice forming up to 8” thicker than usual; and all four of the Earth’s major temperature tracking services confirm that the planet has cooled by as much as .75°C. Apparently we have experienced the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. Dropping from between 0.65C and 0.75C, graphically it is enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years.

Professor Sorokhtin, of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, dismisses man-made climate change as “a drop in the bucket”, and advises people to stock up on warm clothing. He is not alone in believing solar activity and the planet’s orbit (it changes from circular to elliptical every so often, so making us more or less prone to the sun’s behaviour) is the major influence on our climate. There are many, including Kenneth Tapping of Canada’s National Research Council, who hold this belief, but it has not been politically expedient to have them heard lately - it might put people off paying those green taxes.

Followers of the solar theory are convinced we could be in for a long period of severely cold weather if the sun’s activity does not pick up soon. The last time it was this inactive we suffered the Little Ice Age, and that lasted for about five centuries, ending in 1850. During that time there were food shortages as crops failed regularly because of severe frosts and drought. Rivers and harbours froze solid, causing trade to cease, and both plague and war became commonplace. It has to be said the evidence for a period of rapid cooling is flimsy, but the scientists argue it is no more flimsy than the evidence used for global warming.

If we study the temperature trend from 1998 to today (over the time we have heard so much about global warming) you may be surprised to learn it is distinctly downward, but taken from 1900 to today there is a noticeable upward trend. However if one goes back further still, say to 500 AD (and that is a mere blink in the age of the planet), the overall trend is unmistakeably seen as cooling again. Earth is much cooler today than it was then.

Irrespective of any involvement man might have, whether or not global warming is a fact and really occurring at any time all depends on where you wish to place your viewpoint. The Earth has no “normal” temperature or climate, it is constantly changing so it will always be seen to be heading off in one direction or another - and there will be nothing we can do to alter that - however if one had to pick a “norm”, a mean average temperature, it would certainly be hotter than today. Apparently the ice caps have receded before, completely disappearing many times, temperatures have far exceeded anything wildly predicted by the alarmists today, and even that Gulf Stream has stopped and restarted without the end of the world occurring.

Perhaps man has greatly over-estimated his importance and his ability to significantly influence the destiny of our planet. Deforestation, on the scale it is being carried out today, is perhaps the most relevant damage we are capable of doing - and on that there is a lot of agreement. To remove our lungs (the rainforests) which are critical to our survival in order to grow crops for bio-fuel in some mad hope it will benefit the planet is stupidity in the extreme. Stopping this one thing from happening is likely to be of more benefit to our world than everything else we could do all put together.

Of course, all these recent signs pointing to global warming possibly being nothing more than natural climatic variations that could change at any time into a long cold period is not good news for those of us looking forward to a Mediterranean-style climate in Blackpool. I guess the dreams of scantily clad pool boys serving vodka and cokes to us whilst we soaked up the rays on our lilos might have to remain just that - dreams. Never mind, we are getting quite good at dreaming in Blackpool. We are used to things not coming to fruition here - like the Mega-Casino as good as promised to us, then Storm City, and later the regeneration money as an alternative solution promised by the government. So far this has turned out to be little more than what we already had earmarked, maintenance money, and nothing extra for what we really need - except, that is, for a surplus of useless words again. Ones that have been repeated parrot-fashion by politicians for too many years.

The latest on the plight here is: “Let’s talk,” says the PM, appearing as headlines in our local newspaper. But there has been more than enough talking - so much talking that we fear for our donkeys’ hind legs! It is time for the government to sit down and listen for a change - and then do something more than talk.

Desperate for regeneration funds in order to survive as a holiday resort, we are sickened to have to watch the arguments over the moral rights of MPs allowances after learning that Alan and Ann Keen, both of them Labour MPs, have been claiming a massive £38,515 a year for a second home - far more money than many people here earn - although their constituencies are only a mere nine miles away from the Commons. And they are not alone - it seems that twenty-four MPs with seats in Greater London have claimed an amount totalling almost £400,000 for second homes last year, all of it public money.

We should not forget that (disregarding our EuroMPs) there are nearly 650 MPs eligible for allowances, so the total cost is a vast amount of money. As many reading this will undoubtedly have to travel considerably greater distances than nine miles daily for their employment, and with no allowances whatsoever, I suggest that money could easily be put to much better use. Give it to Blackpool - £88 million would solve quite a few problems here - and then purpose-build an accommodation block close enough to the Commons for all those MPs who have to stay over. By electing these people we employ them to represent us, and for that task they are well paid. We do not elect them to live like royalty, nor to buy second homes at our expense.

The £400 a month an MP is allowed for food, with no receipts needed, is absolutely ridiculous too - would these politicians not be eating if they were at home? That allowance alone is £16 more than sick and disabled people receive to run a home on. Whilst the needy are expected to stay alive and pay all their bills on £96 per week, our MPs are skinning us for £88 million in allowances, making the average cost to the taxpayer of an MP now little short of £200,000. Value for money? Don’t make me spit - just look at the state of the country!

Likewise: how can the government justify spending more than £50,000 of taxpayers’ money on a series of banquets simply in order to celebrate the formation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission? Equality and Human Rights? For whom - those already on a £400 food allowance? Where was my share of the banquets?

And whilst I am on a run of complaining: why should our MPs be allowed to pay for the new bin tax using taxpayers’ money - our money again! - when families who cannot afford to pay it will have to face the bailiff calling on them, or perhaps even go to gaol? Equality and Human Rights? Yes, I think I still remember such things - but which drawer marked “Nostalgia” did we put them in?

It will be a great pity if global warming turns out to be a fallacy. We could do with those scantily clad pool boys to take our minds off all the atrociousness of government!

OBAMANISM IS THE CURE FOR CLINTONITIS AND MIDDLE EAST STRIFE.

Obamanism is the cure for Clintonitis that has devastated America and I hope Jews all over US rally around Obama and support him to win both the nomination and the Presidency because after he wins, he would help the Jews and Israel as well as settle the Middle East problems.

However, if Jews betray Obama and he loses, Africans worldwide would consider it a betrayal to the whole African people and will never forgive world Jewry.

In retaliation, (eye for eye, remember!) Africa would consider expelling all Jews from Africa who have been mining African Gold and Diamond and enriching themselves for many centuries.

It was African gold and diamond that built international finance, trade and banking that the Jews (Rothschild, Warbug, Rockefeller and others) dominate.

It was African gold and diamond that built Jewish banks and wealth worldwide.

Thousands of years ago, when Jews were starving and nearly perished in Palestine, they took refuge in Egypt, Africa.

If Egypt and Africa did not feed the Jews, perhaps there would be no Jews today.

Jews also took all Egyptian and African science, technology and religious knowledge that have helped them to develop themselves and to get to where they are today: on top of most of the industries and corporations all over the world.

Jews owe Africa and Africans everything they have today because if Africa did not shelter them when they were homeless and starving, they would not be here today.

If Africa did not give them their religion, Judaism and science and technology of the ancient astronaut Anunnaki’s gods, they probably would have not prospered.

If Jews betray Africans by betraying Obama, there would be grave consequences that would shake the foundation of Earth.

Let Jews remember who their best friend is!

Hundreds of years ago during the Inquisition in Europe, the Catholic Church slaughtered Jews in Spain and all over Europe and forced most of them to convert to Christianity to stay alive.

Moreover, during World war 2, Hitler and his Nazi regime gassed and slaughtered them too.

When they escaped to America, they met opposition and discrimination everywhere.

They had to hustle to survive.

Again, Africa helped them by allowing them to continue mining all their gold and diamond.

African gold and diamond are the foundation of the wealth of world Jewry.

Abraham Foxman, we hope you remember that!

The only people who have been nice to Jews have been Africans.

It is now payback time and Africans hope you would not bite the hands that fed you and made you rich and the envy of the world today.

Billary is divisive, cannot beat senator McCain!!!

During their 30 yrs in Politics, they never solved even one single problem despite all their experience and slick Willie’s ingenuity.

The best things that they gave America were endless scandals and the destruction of American reputation all over the world.
(Sex and drugs in the White House)

This empowered terrorists to attack America because they felt America had become weak and an easy target.

Does anyone still remember 9/11???

McCain is a nice man. Great man. War Hero! Very respectable and likable man.

But he is too old. He has no juice or fire. He has no agenda to fix American problems.

The only issue he is passionate about is Iraqi war and he plans to keep America in Iraq for 100 yrs, while American economy and Americans keep suffering and languishing, as India, China, Japan, Korea and Singapore keep progressing and are now manufacturing and exporting all the consumer goods needed in America.

It is an outrage that America is now being forced to borrow money from Communist China to buy oil from Saudi Arabia.

Almost all American banks are controlled by Saudi Arabian money invested there.

If they pull their money out, American banking system and economy would collapse.

And Hugo Chavez would party all day and night.

America is slowly becoming a nation of consumers and sliding into a third world status.

Osama Bin Laden is still free roaming the world.

They have not arrested him. Why?

But they feel fine squandering trillions of dollars in Iraq while Iran works hard daily to acquire nuclear weapon that they plan to use to wipe Israel out.

Something is very wrong and dreadful with the priorities of American foreign policy.

Billary is part of the problem, not the solution and her presidency will be a continuation of her husband’s presidency that was scandal ridden.

She is just a well informed candidate who is capable of crying to get sympathy and votes.

If America puts her in White House, whenever there is a crisis, she would be crying instead of using her brain to figure out the solution.

Can America afford a President who melts down and cry like a 16 yrs old girl, when she is faced with a challenge?

Being the President of America is the most challenging job in the world!!!

To support Billary to become the next President would make America to lose complete respect and it would amount to an open invitation to terrorists all over the world to come back and hit America more.

Has Americans not learned any lessons? Has America not suffered enough?

Does America need more terrorist attacks because their enemies perceive them as weak by putting a crying President in the White House?

She will not have any nerve or ability to solve one problem in America because she is part of the problem, part of Washington gridlock, with a lot of obligations to special interests and PAC.

Billary have been in politics for 30 yrs.

They should retire because their brains are old and dried up and devoid of any new and fresh ideas.

The only things they are very good in doing are lying, playing dirty politics and causing scandals!

If they could not help America for 30 yrs that they were in office, they will never do it now that they are older and getting senile.

Enough is enough.

America has suffered enough of Clintonitis.

Americans have spoken loud and clear: they do not want political business as usual that Clintonitis represent.

They want change and they want it fast.

They have chosen and anointed Obama as the agent of change.

He is the new political Messiah who shall continue where JFK stopped.

Americans seem to be in slumber and in complete denial of the present dangerous and volatile world situation.

This is where Jews can help.

By supporting Obama to win, they would cure America of Clintonitis and thereby be able to find a permanent solution to the Arab-Jewish problem in the Middle East.

Jews must support Obama or face grave consequences. You cannot afford not to.

Africans have been nice and helped Jews for more than 2000 yrs.

Now, I say to Jews all over the world, it is time to show your gratitude.

Hope you have enjoyed this article about Barack Obama for USA President, Vote for Obama, Michelle Obama, Hope and change, White House, next American President, super delegates, election 2008 campaign, American politics, Hillary Rod-harm Clinton, Bill Clinton, Billary, Clintonitis, Senator John McCain, Middle East Problem, Iraqi War, Iran Nuclear Weapons, WMD, American veterans, American soldiers in Iraq, Ikey G-khan Galacticca, World Peace, WPPM (World Peace And Prosperity Mandate), Scogostology.com, SCOGOSTOLOGY-POLITICALOGY, Scogostologism, Scogos, SGS, Scogostologist, galahuman, Galahumanism, Christianity, Democrats, independent voters, republicans, American politics, US Congress, American economy, tax rebates checks, Jewish support for Obama, World Jewry, Israel, American TV stations, American media, Obama blogs.

Have you ever met something that on the face of it seems okay, but the hype which comes with it begins to worry you? Today, as I write this, in an “exclusive” the local newspaper has revealed a nearby building firm wishes to erect 637 eco-friendly and energy efficient homes on a 42 acre site a few miles inland from Blackpool’s South Shore, at Marton, in a £150 million housing development project. So far, so good. The firm is apparently recognised for building good housing stock, and eco-friendly and energy efficient homes are always a good idea. But then we learn that members of the public may view the plans today between 2.30pm until 5pm and tomorrow between 1.30pm until 5pm at the Marton Methodist Church Hall.

Now that is not a lot of notice to give anyone to arrange time off work so they can go along and sum up this proposed development, is it? Straightaway, the suspicious old crab that I am, I am motivated to start looking for rats. The spiel emanating from Peter Liversedge, of the developers Kensington Partnership, does nothing to alleviate my fears.

According to our newspaper, the Gazette, he has said: “This is a statement of confidence in Blackpool and the Fylde coast region for us, as local developers. This could potentially be one of the biggest investments in Blackpool and provide a gateway into Blackpool for visitors. The town is crying out for investment and there is so much talk about regeneration – well, here we are. We want to invest in this great project which is eco-friendly and really progressive.”

Wow! That is some spiel - worthy of the best of our used-car salesmen! Notice how “Blackpool” has three mentions within just those four sentences, and is linked so positively with: “investment”, “regeneration”, “gateway”, and “visitors” - everything we need! Add to that: “eco-friendly” and who couldn’t resist the bargain? However when we learn that the impact on the area will be kept to a minimum with “buffer zones” of trees and shrubs separating it from existing properties, one begins to question the relationship between this now obviously private housing estate and: “visitors”, “gateway”, and even “regeneration”. The land here is quite pleasant to look at, is not on most visitors’ itineraries or even their route into the resort - so where is the gateway? - and it is certainly not in need of regeneration like the tourist area of Blackpool.

Of course we must not condemn Peter Liversedge for merely doing his job - trying to sell the project to us. That is quite acceptable. Not even learning that Blackpool Council and its leader, Peter Callow, are impressed by the plans, unduly bothers me. That is, not until Mr Callow comes out with an absurdity: he suggests the scheme may encourage the borough’s young people to get onto the property ladder.

Perhaps when he uttered this the poor man didn’t have a calculator with him. £150 million to be recovered and see a profit from 637 properties tells me, without a calculator, the average property here will go for far in excess of a quarter-of-a-million pounds even at today’s prices - and if the local soothsayers are to be believed, and the properties need building on rafts and piles because of the nature of the land, they could easily turn out to be even more expensive. That sure is going to be some mighty steep step up onto the property ladder for most of the young people of this borough, I can tell you! Jees! The price those burgers will have to be just doesn’t bear thinking about!

In pleasant surroundings, and with the promised shop and pond (should they get this past Health & Safety without the barbed wire fence), this development would provide some much sought after quality homes, and entice those able to afford them into the area. For the most part I suspect these people would have employment away from Blackpool, nevertheless they could still provide a small but welcome boost to the resort’s finer restaurants and better class of entertainment venues, especially our theatres.

So this leaves me with a problem: why have both the developer and the council tried to sell us a pig when it is plainly a perfectly good cow that is on offer? Could it have anything to do with the number remaining of realistically “affordable” homes that may still be built? Hmm . . . Nice cow - shame about the flatulence!

A couple of quickies before I go: ahead of some more proposed Health & Safety rules and regulations, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf has launched a competition to find earplugs that would be acceptable to the nation’s young clubbers. The charity believes 90% of young clubbers have experienced early signs of hearing damage and tells us: the small earplugs available for between £10 and £15 work much better than the cheaper earplugs used by some to help them sleep. The dearer ones allow the clubbers to hear the detail of the music whilst reducing the volume.

There will be many who have survived more than 50 years of Rock & Roll and Disco music, the majority of it before any limitations were put on the amount of decibels permitted, who, with still average hearing for their now advanced years, will chuckle at this one. Quite obviously music that is too loud is not advisable and may be damaging to some people’s hearing, but rather than let common sense prevail and an informed crowd choose where they wish to go - thereby forcing the music-providers into playing at acceptable levels - some people are looking to make money out of this. Designer earplugs may need the law before they start selling - but they are on the way. So I guess the law is too. I think at my age they will have to be purple ones, don’t you? Fluffy would be nice!

Finally, as I have mentioned clubbing, perhaps I should not leave out a story relevant to all that goes with it. Ask any clubber about “a burning bush” and a certain brand of ointment is likely to spring into their mind long before any religious notions. However Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, suggests Moses was probably on drugs when he saw the famous “burning bush”. Apparently mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times. Drugs were used that induced people to “see music”.

Mentioning his own use of a powerful psychotropic plant, ayahuasca, during a religious ceremony in South America (1991) where he experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations, Shanon says the effects were comparable to those produced by concoctions made mainly from the bark of the acacia tree that is frequently referred to in the Bible. Really? Acacia Avenue - a cliché within British culture as a metaphor for an average middle-class suburban street - may never again be seen in exactly the same light!

Mantovani on acid - now that is mind-blowing! And the Last Night of the Proms, a haven for the middle-class - but one that the arts minister, Margaret Hodge, who, obviously barking up the wrong type of tree, suggests does not encourage a diverse enough audience - really is an absolute blast, I promise you! Just how diverse does this woman want to make it? Can she not “see” the music?

Suburbia survives - and barking mad it has found a way to remove all the pain of politics. Good old Acacia Avenue! The backbone of our Land of Dope and Glory. Get a life, Margaret. Move into Acacia Avenue!

Once again our leaders in the Bush administration have shown how little we are protected. If they can’t even protect the private passport records of our presidential candidates how can we expect them to stop the bomb in the shopping mall, the suitcase nuke coming across the southern board or the millions of containers that arrive at our ports everyday – unexamined.

We are quickly becoming a society of people all of whom are at some level of “post traumatic stress syndrome’. Point in fact – when the tornado hit the Golden Dome in Atlanta during the basketball game last week, most people reported that their first thought was “it was a terrorist attack.” How many of you have thought the same thing when something happens in your hometowns. I have and if you are honest – you have also. We jump at noises that use to not bother us; we tense up if a helicopter flies over too low. Some of us sleep with the light on now or CNN on all night.

It has been that way for five years because our leaders have led with fear. They have continued to play the “fear card” every time they need something from Congress and they play it again whenever they need the public to contact their Congressional Representative.

I don’t like this feeling – this feeling of having our guard up all the time. The administration is even running public service announcements about having a family plan, where to meet our family members if there is a terrorist attack and everyone in your family is separated.

Every time there is a breaking news bulletin – is this it? They have started testing the emergency broadcast network on a weekly basis now – instead of monthly – and it is always on different day and time so it catches us off guard. Do they know something that we don’t know, or do they just want us to believe they do?

How long can our leaders keep us in a state of fear? What damage is this fear having on our bodies? Fear is a powerful emotion – people do brutal acts because of fear. Revolutions are started in the name of fear.

And do you realize how many of our Constitutional rights have been taken away. Let’s take a look at this. Let say your best friend lives in France. The two of you email back and forth talking about “terrorists”. This word triggers your email into a government program and puts you on a list of people to watch. If you are suspected, the government can bust into your home and search it without a warrant. You can be arrested with no charges and can be kept in jail for weeks or more. If they believe you have information, they ship you to a “friendly country” and beat you half to death to extract information out of you. After a day or two of this – you tell them anything, and if you have no real information – you make up a story just so the torture will stop. Did you realize this? No, probably not because we are afraid. Fear is very powerful and it can keep people in line. This is exactly what the Nazi party did in its rise to power before WW II.

What can we do about this? Probably nothing. The Democrats are fighting over the nomination and the Republican candidate is just Bush III.

Our government should be reassuring us, making us unafraid. A fearful populist can revolt when they are not happy with the present leaders. A fearful populist will follow false prophets who speak will and who can convince them to follow him – people who really are unable to lead.

This is the most important thing to do about this – when you go to vote in November, don’t vote for a person out of fear. Vote for them out of hope and change and pray that the person you voted for can deliver on the hope and the change.