Tag Archives: Al Gore

Bush, Gore, Al Queda, and Sept. 11

Damadged sculpture that stands in Battery Park in New York City

The Sphere, by Fritz Koenig, in Battery Park. Image by L. Furman

Should the President have been able to foil the attacks of September 11?

Throughout the 1990’s we sustained:

The 1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City,
The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center,
The 1998 bombings of the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,
The 2000 bombing of the U. S. S. Cole,
And in 1999 we foiled Al Queda’s Millennium plot.

President Clinton and Vice President Gore knew that Osama bin Laden was a threat. They knew he had been trained by the CIA in the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. They also knew that he financed and or masterminded the simultaneous attacks on U. S. embassies in Dar Es Salam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya on August 7, 1998, and the October, 2000 attack on the U. S. S. Cole. And President Clinton told us that after his January 2001 inauguration he briefed President Bush on bin Laden.

Continue reading →

Gore & The Supreme Court

In the Election of 2000, Al Gore won the “Popular Vote” 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, 48.38% to 47.87%, by a margin of 543,895, or 0.51% of the vote. However, he lost Florida by 547 votes. Consequently Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes were awarded to Bush and Gore lost the election in the Electoral College 271 to 266 – by five votes. Had he won Florida votes he would also have won the Electoral College Vote, but the Supreme Court intervened, ruled that there was no time for a recount, (see wikipedia entry, here) therefore George W. Bush had won in Florida, and that Mr. Bush, therefore, was elected President by the Electoral College. But what if Gore had won a decisive majority in the Electoral College? What if our elections were determined by the popular vote? What if the election of 2000 had been called for Gore? (Source: Federal Election Commission, FEC, Presidential Election, 2000, Official Results.

What kind of jurists would a President Gore have appointed to the Supreme Court?

Presidents tend to appoint justices who agree with them on political philosophy. Notable exceptions were Warren Burger, appointed by President Eisenhower, and David Souter, appointed by President G. H. W. Bush.

George W Bush appointed Samuel Alito and John Roberts, to the Supreme Court. These men typically join with Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, and they typically find in favor of corporations and the government rather than individual citizens.

Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. They typically find in favor over individuals rather than corporations or the government. Barack Obama appointed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who typically agree with Breyer and Ginsburg. Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor have occasionally forged majorities with Kennedy and Roberts.

As President, Al Gore would have probably have appointed jurists like Kagan and Sotomayor who tend to find in agreement with Ginsburg and Breyer. He might have appointed Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court. He probably would have appointed justices with a comprehensive understanding of environmental law and the reasons why we need tough protections on the environment.

We saw these patterns in the decisions on Citizens United and Florence v Burlington, described by me as “Landmark Mistakes of the Supreme Court” (here). These were decided by Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas in the majority and Associate Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor in the minority. The decision on the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” was made by Chief Justice Roberts, with Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor.

Justices appointed by a President Gore would probably have found in favor of Albert Florence, in Florence v Burlington, that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to bar strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving drugs or violence, unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that they were carrying contraband. In Citizens United, they probably would have found that citizens and groups may not spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections.

The practical implications those rulings – that police, after reading an apprehended suspect his or her rights in accord with the Miranda decision, can strip-search him or her, and that anyone and corporations can spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of elections, suggest that the (human) Citizens of the Republic would be better served with one or two more Justices who would tend to rule in favor of the rights and liberties of (human) citizens rather than the powers of corporations and the state.

In the recent decision on the Affordable Care Act, aka, “ObamaCare” judges appointed by a President Gore might have found, like Chief Justice Roberts, the law Constitutional under the taxing provision of the Constitution. On the other hand, they might have ruled that the laws establishing Medicare for Seniors, Medicaid for the poor, and the Veterans Health Administration must be expanded, because they are discriminatory against non-veterans who do not qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, and that these programs must be combined to create a “Citizens Health Administration” or “Medicare for All,” which would guarantee all Americans access to basic medical care.
–
Neither Presidents Clinton, Bush, or Obama, or any of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were reached in the preparation of this post. Observations by current or former Presidents, Justices of the Supreme Court or justices in other courts would be welcome.

–

As an analyst with Popular Logistics, I am available for research and analysis on a per project or a per diem basis. I can be reached at ‘L Furman 97” @ G Mail . com.
–

What If … Gore had been President?

In the XB Cold Fingers song, “Sunbathing In Siberia,” (Listen / Try or Buy / Lyrics ) I wrote,

“If Gore had been awarded the White House
he’d chain us to Kyoto, don’t ya see.
There’d be solar panels on the rooftops,
wind power, clean power, almost free.”

While the song is a tongue-in-cheek look at energy, climate change, and the election of 2000; what if Gore had been the 43rd President?

In this series of posts, I’ll explore this scenario in terms of what it would have meant for the Supreme Court, foreign policy and defense.

Who would Gore have appointed to the Supreme Court?
How would they have decided Citizens United and Florence v Burlington?
What about September 11 – would the 19 terrorists have been able to hijack 4 planes and crash two into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon?
If so, would we have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan?
If not, would we have gone to war in Iraq anyway?
And what about Iran? Israel? The Arab Spring?
And the economy here in the United States?

This next post in the series looks at the Supreme Court. Stay tuned.

Landmark Mistakes of the Supreme Court, Part 3

Al Gore

The decision in Bush v Gore is widely regarded as a landmark mistake, both because the Supreme Court acted politically and because of President Bush’s accomplishments and legacy.

While it is too recent for a historical consensus, and too political to be without controversy, virtually all liberals and progressives view the results of Bush v Gore, 2000, (Cornell Law School / Wikipedia) as disastrous based on the Bush Administration’s environmental, economic, and foreign policies, i.e., the Bush tax cuts, ignoring intelligence regarding Osama bin Laden on 6, August, 2011 (here), not killing bin Laden when we allegedly had him cornered in Tora Bora in 2001 (here), the War in Iraq, appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, etc.

Pages: 1 2

Renewable Energy, The Wall St. Journal, Faux News

George Gilder, writing in the Wall Street Journal, 11/18/10, in California’s Destructive Green Jobs Lobby complained of the defeat of the repeal of the “Global Warming Solutions Act.”

“Economic sanity lost out in what may have been the most important election on Nov. 2—and, no, I’m not talking about the gubernatorial or senate races. … This was the California referendum to repeal Assembly Bill 32, the so-called Global Warming Solutions Act, which ratchets the state’s economy back to 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2020. That’s a 30% drop followed by a mandated 80% overall drop by 2050. Together with a $500 billion public-pension overhang, the new energy cap dooms the state to bankruptcy.”

Gilder also wrote: “California officials acknowledged last Thursday that the state faces $20 billion deficits every year from now to 2016.” That’s $120 Billion over the next 6 years. This is a state of 37 million people (US Census). It should be able to borrow that money at 4% or 5% – which is $3083 per capita. Borrowed at 5% interest over 20 years, it’s $20.35 per person per month – which does not seem to be enough to push someone into bankruptcy.

Continue reading →

Drill Baby, Drill – or Drill Baby, Oops

Second in a series (1, 2) that began on “Earth Day” (0).

“In order to make Policy, you have to be good at Politics.”

– Deborah Stone, “Policy Paradox”

President Obama, Official Photo

I like and respect President Obama. I think he’s a well educated lawyer and law school professor, with a good grasp of the Constitution, and the realities of Chicago machine politics and Inside-The-Beltway politics. He understands Stone. He’s also a moderate liberal. However, his economic advisors – Tim Geithner and Larry Sommers – only know what’s good for Wall Street, so every answer is “what’s good for Wall Street.” They don’t appear to know anything about ecological economics. Obama needs to listen to Herman Daly, Robert Costanza, Paul Krugman, Robin Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and others with a long term view and a better understanding of what neoclassical economists call “externalities.”

Perhaps worse, his energy secretary, Steven Chu, is focused on carbon sequestration, nuclear power, and what we might as well call “Drill Baby, Opps.” Continue reading →

Stretching the Conventional Wisdom

I was invited to join a panel on Jumpstarting the Green Economy hosted by the Sustainable Business Incubator at Fairleigh Dickenson University on May 21, 2009. Copies of the conference presentations are available from the organizers for about $50. Copies of my presentation in audio and powerpoint format are available for $15, including shipping and taxes. Call or E-Mail me here or at Furman Consulting Group.

It boils down to this: Wind, Solar, Geothermal, other sustainable energy and Negawatts vs. Coal, Oil, and Nuclear; to Sustainable Business or Bernie Madoff and the Mafia. Continue reading →

ELECTRICITY: 100% CLEAN AND GREEN BY 2018

The Gore Energy Challenge– 100% clean, renewable, sustainable electricity in 10 years, can be described in 3 words. Reasonable, Achievable, Visionary. Here’s how:

40% Land Based Wind = 150 GW: $300 Billion.
40% Offshore Wind = 150 GW: $450 Billion.
20% Solar = 75 GW: $375 Billion.

100% Clean Energy = 375 GW: $1.125 Trillion.
Save the Earth – Priceless.

The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones. And the age of fossil fuels is ending not because we are running out of fossil fuel, (altho we are) but because we are figuring out how better technologies. Biofuels, Geothermal, Marine Kinetic, Solar, Wind, and of course, Conservation.

The Popular Logistics Plan for Clean, Renewable, Sustainable Energy for the United States

The Gore Energy Challenge: Clean and Green by 2018. Visionary, Reasonable, Achievable. Ask T. Boone Pickens at The Pickens Plan, and Peter Mandelstam at Blue Water Wind.

We could meet the electric power requirements of the United States, estimated at 250 Gigawatts, GW, of generating capacity with wind turbines and photovoltaic solar arrays, for about $811 Billion in 10 years.

Land Based Wind: 100 GW, or 40%, at $2.0 Billion per GW: $200 Billion.
Offshore Wind: 100 GW, or 40%, at $2.86 Billion per GW: $286 Billion.
PV Solar: 50 GW, or 20% at $6.5 Billion per GW: $325 Billion.
Total Cost: $811 Billion. (less than has been squandered on the war in Iraq.)

Saving the earth: Priceless.

Key Benefits:

Good Jobs.
Healthy Economy.
Enhanced Emergency Response Capability.
Stronger National Security.
Clean Environment.
No Toxic Wastes.
No Mercury.

No Radioactive Wastes.
No Coal Mining Disasters.
Less Government Regulation.

This plan doesn’t exploit solar thermal, marine kinetic, geothermal, deep geothermal, cogen, biofuels, or conservation, which will be integrated into this plan in the near future. The plan also focuses on current electricity demand. It does not yet forecast increased electricity demand from population growth, transition from fossil fuels for heating or cooking, or increased reliance on plug-in hybrid cars.

Clean and Green By 2018!

Gore proposes 10-year plan to produce entire U.S. energy consumption via renewables

Via Ron Fournier of the Associated Press, Gore sets ‘moon shot’ goal on climate change, dated today (16 July 2008). An excerpt:

Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are “way ahead” of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

[We haven’t examined either candidates’ positions on these issues carefully – but we take Senator Gore’s implicit point – that the necessity will be present whoever wins the election – Eds.]

– snip –

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand.

“This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over,” Gore said. “It’s an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels.”

Excerpted from Gore sets ‘moon shot’ goal on climate change. By Ron Fournier of The Associated Press.

We understand – or believe – that the AP has been concerned about excessive use of their reports. We believe the above excerpt complies with the “fair use” doctrine. Also – Fournier’s lead – the comparison to the space program – is particulary apt, and should be useful in public discussion.