Bruce Jenner's Courage

February 5, 2015   NICHOLAS KRISTOF
When I was a growing up, yearning with my pals to be a track star, one of our heroes was Bruce Jenner. He won a gold medal at the 1976 Olympics in the decathlon, and he adorned our Wheaties boxes. We all wanted to be Bruce Jenner.
I haven't thought much about him in years. But Jenner is in the news again, widely reported to be preparing to come out as a transgender woman.
At first, there were snickers, but, lately, the tone has been respectful. And news reports say Jenner is planning to chronicle the transition in a program for E! television channel and in an interview with Diane Sawyer for ABC News. All this, and comments by family members, suggest that Jenner is willing to be a role model and help educate the world on transgender issues.
Radar Online quoted his mother, Esther Jenner, as confirming the news and saying she was prouder of him now than when he won his gold medal. His stepdaughter, Kim Kardashian, told ''Entertainment Tonight'' that it was Jenner's story to tell but added: ''I think he'll share whenever the time is right.''
Good for Jenner. All this is probably harder than the training for the Olympic decathlon -- but more important, because transgender people face hate crimes and discrimination at an astonishing rate.
Remember Matthew Shepard, the 21-year-old gay university student in Wyoming who in 1998 was tied to a fence, badly beaten and left to die? That was seen as the ultimate hate crime and now seems to belong to a different era.
Yet, just so far this year, at least three transgender people have been reported murdered in the United States. The Human Rights Campaign issued a report the other day listing 13 transgender women murdered in 2014: They were shot, strangled, burned and beaten.
''Violence is something that is disproportionately affecting transgender people -- and for specific reasons,'' says Elizabeth Halloran of the Human Rights Campaign. ''Inability to access employment, housing and safety-net services, as well as family rejection, all conspire to create a reality that makes transgender people -- especially transgender people of color, transgender women and transgender people living poverty -- more vulnerable to violence.''
Vincent Paolo Villano of the National Center for Transgender Equality said that there has been progress in laws protecting transgender Americans, but that public attitudes remain a problem.
Sex and gender are such befuddling mysteries even for those of us who are in the mainstream that you'd think we'd be wary of being judgmental. Yet much of society clings to a view that gender is completely binary, when, in fact, there's overwhelming evidence of a continuum.
And considering the violence and discrimination that transgender people endure, no one would go through this except for the most profound of motivations: to be authentic to one's inner self.
A 2011 survey by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force found that 57 percent of transgender people interviewed reported significant family rejection. Partly because of widespread job discrimination, they were often impoverished, and almost one-fifth had been homeless. And 41 percent reported having attempted suicide.
''Gender needs to be taught about in schools,'' Leelah Alcorn, a transgender 17-year-old who had been sent to conversion therapy by her parents, wrote in a suicide note when she killed herself last year. ''Fix society. Please.''
Gays and lesbians began to gain civil rights when Americans realized that their brothers, cousins, daughters were gay. Numbers are elusive, but research at the University of California at Los Angeles suggests that while 3.5 percent of American adults identify as gay, only 0.3 percent are transgender.
Jay Brown, a transgender man who has written an excellent online guide to how the public can support those transitioning, notes that as 65 percent of Americans say they have a family member or close friend who is gay, compared with only 9 percent who have such a connection to someone who is transgender.
Yet there are signs of a real opening, with TV shows dealing with transgender issues, Vice President Joe Biden referring to transgender discrimination as ''the civil rights issue of our time,'' and President Obama mentioning transgender people in his State of the Union address last month.
That's the context in which Jenner is now stepping forward. If the aim is to educate us, bravo!
Cynics might say that the television plans are more about self-promotion than leadership. All I know is that Jenner seems to be preparing for a bold public mission involving something intensely personal, in a way that should open minds and hearts. So, in my book, Bruce Jenner is now a gold medalist again. Come on, Wheaties. It's time to put Jenner back on the box!


'American Sniper' Moral

February 5, 2015   GAIL COLLINS
Things we can learn from ''American Sniper'':
You know the movie, right? It has not only been nominated for the Best Picture Oscar; it could wind up selling more tickets than the other seven nominees combined. Plus, it's triggered a left-right controversy that makes the old dust-up over ''Duck Dynasty'' seem like a tiny cultural blip.
''American Sniper'' tells the story of Chris Kyle, a real-life Iraq war veteran and sharpshooter. The film is certainly powerful, and it celebrates our Iraq veterans. But it also eulogizes the killing of Iraq insurgents, including children, and critics feel it ought to be put in the context of an invasion that didn't need to happen in the first place.
There's been less conversation about the final scene in the movie, which shows the hero walking through his family home, where the kids are romping. He's carrying a handgun, which he points at his wife Taya, playfully telling her to ''drop them drawers.'' Taya says she can see he's finally getting over his war traumas and back to his old fun-loving self.
This is, by virtually any standard, insane behavior. Mike Huckabee, a big ''American Sniper'' fan, recently published a book called ''God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,'' which is so wildly opposed to any weapon regulation that Huckabee opens his chapter on modern education by complaining that public schools are anti-gun. Yet he also presents a list of universally accepted gun safety rules, many of which boil down to don't point it at anybody as a joke.
''Yeah, but if you want to complain about the casual treatment of guns in movies, you don't have to look very hard on any Friday night,'' said Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Murphy hasn't seen the movie, but he's one of Congress's leading advocates of gun-control regulation. It's not the world's most rewarding job. In recent years, his colleagues have not only refused to pass an extremely modest bill on background checks, they've failed to ban the sale of guns to people on the terrorism watch list.
''American Sniper'' is on one, supremely obvious level, a celebration of gun culture. But it's also a cautionary tale. The real Chris Kyle was shot to death while the script was being written. He had volunteered to help a troubled veteran, Eddie Ray Routh, who had a history of violent behavior and was an apparent victim of post-traumatic stress. Kyle felt the best way to get him to relax was to take him to a shooting range. While they were there, Routh turned his gun on Kyle, and one of Kyle's friends, killing them both.
''American Sniper'' could actually be seen, at least in the final scene, as a good-gun, bad-gun message. The real Chris Kyle did enjoy walking around the house, twirling a pistol. His wife said that as the clouds lifted after his Iraq service, he would playfully point a gun at the television and pretend to shoot down the bad guys.
Jason Hall, who wrote the movie screenplay, said the scene was meant to both show Kyle in recovery and presage the violence that was about to occur off-screen.
''There's a tension in the scene that builds toward the ending,'' he said in a phone interview.
The American gun lobby has pushed its cause so far that it, too, may be falling off a cliff. Texas, where Chris Kyle's alleged murderer is going on trial next week, has always had a gun-friendly culture, so much so that visitors can bring concealed handguns into the State Capitol. Some people definitely do not think this goes far enough, and, on opening day of the Legislature last month, they demanded new laws making it legal to carry handguns in the open, preferably without a license.
One particularly bouncy group, Open Carry Tarrant County, flooded the office of Representative Poncho Nevárez, a non-supportive Democrat. A video of the ensuing scene showed Nevárez, looking extremely wary, asking the demonstrators to leave his office, while one of them yelled back: ''I'm asking you to leave my state.'' When Nevárez tried to close his door, one of the protesters stuck his foot in it. This was all happening, remember, in a building where carrying concealed weapons is perfectly fine.
When it was all over, some legislators in both parties wore ''I'm Poncho'' badges in solidarity with Nevárez, who was assigned a security detail after he and his family received threats.
The leader of Open Carry Tarrant County, Kory Watkins, then posted another video in which he claimed that the resistant lawmakers were forgetting their duty was ''to protect the Constitution. And let me remind you: Going against the Constitution is treason. And treason is punishable by death.''
Meanwhile, in the Texas Capitol, enthusiasm for watering down the gun laws seems to be dwindling. That could qualify as a happy ending.


Conflict and Ego

February 6, 2015   DAVID BROOKS

If you read the online versions of newspaper columns you can click over to the reader comments, which are often critical, vituperative and insulting. I've found that I can only deal with these comments by following the adage, ''Love your enemy.''
It's too psychologically damaging to read these comments as evaluations of my intelligence, morals or professional skill. But if I read them with the (possibly delusional) attitude that these are treasured friends bringing me lovely gifts of perspective, then my eye slides over the insults and I can usually learn something. The key is to get the question of my self-worth out of the way -- which is actually possible unless the insulter is really creative.
It's not only newspaper columnists who face this kind of problem. Everybody who is on the Internet is subject to insult, trolling, hating and cruelty. Most of these online assaults are dominance plays. They are attempts by the insulter to assert his or her own superior status through displays of gratuitous cruelty toward a target.
The natural but worst way to respond is to enter into the logic of this status contest. If he puffs himself up, you puff yourself up. But if you do this you put yourself and your own status at center stage. You enter a cycle of keyboard vengeance. You end up with a painfully distended ego, forever in danger, needing to assert itself, and sensitive to sleights.
Clearly, the best way to respond is to step out of the game. It's to get out of the status competition. Enmity is a nasty frame of mind. Pride is painful. The person who can quiet the self can see the world clearly, can learn the subject and master the situation.
Historically, we reserve special admiration for those who can quiet the self even in the heat of conflict. Abraham Lincoln was caught in the middle of a horrific civil war. It would have been natural for him to live with his instincts aflame -- filled with indignation toward those who started the war, enmity toward those who killed his men and who would end up killing him. But his second inaugural is a masterpiece of rising above the natural urge toward animosity and instead adopting an elevated stance.
The terror theater that the Islamic State, or ISIS, is perpetrating these days is certainly in a different category than Internet nastiness. But the beheadings and the monstrous act of human incineration are also insults designed to generate a visceral response.
They are a different kind of play of dominance. They are attempts by insignificant men to get the world to recognize their power and status.
These Islamic State guys burn hostages alive because it wins praise from their colleagues, because it earns attention and because it wins the sort of perverse respect that accompanies fear. We often say that terrorism is an act of war, but that's wrong. Terrorism is an act of taunting. These murderous videos are attempts to make the rest of us feel powerless, at once undone by fear and addled by disgust.
The natural and worst way to respond is with the soul inflamed. If they execute one of our guys, we'll -- as Jordan did -- execute two of their guys. If they chest-thump, we'll chest-thump. If they kill, we'll kill.
This sort of strategy is just an ISIS recruiting tool. It sucks us into their nihilistic status war: Their barbarism and our response.
The world is full of invisible young men yearning to feel significant, who'd love to shock the world and light folks on fire in an epic status contest with the reigning powers.
The best way to respond is to quiet our disgust and quiet our instincts. It is to step out of their game. It is to reassert the primacy of our game. The world's mission in the Middle East is not to defeat ISIS, which is just a barbaric roadblock. It's to reassert the primacy of pluralism, freedom and democracy. It's to tamp down zeal and cultivate self-doubt. The world has to destroy the Islamic State with hard power, but only as a means to that higher moral end.
Many people have lost faith in that democratic mission, but without that mission we're just one more army in a contest of barbarism. Our acts are nothing but volleys in a status war.
In this column, I've tried to describe the interplay of conflict and ego, in arenas that are trivial (the comments section) and in arenas that are monstrous (the war against the Islamic State). In all cases, conflict inflames the ego, distorts it and degrades it.
The people we admire break that chain. They quiet the self and step outside the status war. They focus on the larger mission. They reject the puerile logic of honor codes and status rivalries, and enter a more civilized logic, that doesn't turn us into our enemies.


Net Neutrality Rules

February 7, 2015   JOE NOCERA
In 2009, President Obama nominated Julius Genachowski, a trusted friend who had acted as candidate Obama's technology adviser, to be the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. They both firmly believed in the importance of ''net neutrality,'' in which Internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, would not be able to give one website an advantage over another, or allow companies to pay to get into a ''fast lane'' ahead of competitors. That was the surest way to allow innovation to flourish, they believed.
To Genachowski and his staff, creating net-neutrality protections meant reclassifying components of broadband Internet service from lightly regulated ''information services'' to more highly regulated ''telecommunications services.'' This would subject I.S.P.s like Comcast and Verizon to certain ''common carrier'' regulations under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. But, according to The Wall Street Journal, Larry Summers, who was then Obama's director of the National Economic Council, blocked this effort, fearful of ''overly heavy-handed approaches to net neutrality'' that could be detrimental to the economy.
So instead, in December 2010, the F.C.C. unveiled net-neutrality protections even while retaining the old ''information services'' classification. Many F.C.C. staff members knew this was a riskier approach; after all, an earlier attempt by the agency to censure Comcast for violating net-neutrality principles had been vacated by the courts -- on the grounds that the F.C.C. lacked the proper authority. Sure enough, in January 2014, the court ruled that while the F.C.C. had general authority to regulate Internet traffic, it couldn't impose tougher common-carrier regulation without labeling the service providers common carriers.
Is it any wonder that Tom Wheeler, who succeeded Genachowski as chairman of the F.C.C., announced this week that he was proposing to reclassify broadband Internet services as telecommunications services? What choice did Wheeler have? ''Title II is just a tool to get enforceable rules to protect end users,'' said Michael Beckerman, the president of the Internet Association, a trade group consisting of big Internet companies. Given the prior court decisions, that is really the only tool the government had left.
Is it truly necessary to have government-mandated rules to ensure net neutrality? Yes. One argument made by opponents of Title II classification is that we essentially have had net neutrality all along, so why does the government need to get involved? ''There is no market for paid prioritization,'' said Berin Szoka, the president of TechFreedom, which vehemently opposes the reclassification.
But this is not necessarily because of the workings of the market. For starters, the fastest broadband providers are mostly cable companies, which are quasi monopolies. As part of its deal in buying NBCUniversal, Comcast agreed to Genachowski's net neutrality rules until 2018, regardless of the eventual court decision.
But who's to say what will happen after that? A good dose of competition might help, but other than Google Fiber -- which only exists at this point in three cities -- it is hard to see where that is going to come from. The way things are now, most people only have two options: their cable company or their phone company. That's not enough.
Indeed, a persuasive argument can be made that the previous attempts to create net-neutrality rules played an important role in preventing the broadband providers from, say, creating Internet fast lanes. After all, it took more than three years from the time Genachowski proposed the new net-neutrality rules to the time the court of appeals struck them down. Between those rules and the Comcast agreement, net neutrality was essentially government-mandated.
Another objection the broadband providers make is that the 1934 Communications Act is hardly the right vehicle to regulate the modern Internet. To allay these fears, Wheeler has said he would ''forebear'' those old regulations -- such as price regulation -- that don't make sense for our era. But, opponents argue, what is to prevent a future F.C.C. chairman from imposing price regulation? Surely, though, the same can be asked of the broadband providers: What is to prevent them from someday violating net neutrality if there are no rules of the road? This strikes me as by far the more credible worry.
How to classify Internet services shouldn't even be a question, and it wasn't before 2002. That's when Michael Powell, who was then the F.C.C. chairman -- and is now the chief lobbyist for the cable industry -- decided he wanted Internet services to be classified as an information service. He essentially commanded the F.C.C. to come up with a rationale for doing so, said Barbara Cherry, a professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, and a former F.C.C. staff member. What Wheeler is doing is not a radical step, she said. ''They were classified as telecommunications services because they were telecommunications services.
''Classifying them as information services exclusively,'' she added, ''was the real radical decision.''


북 미사일 억제 수단은 필요 … 미•중이 상호 설득하게 해야 - 하영선, 문재인

http://joongang.joins.com/article/787/17406787.html?ctg=1000&cloc=joongang%7Chome%7Cnewslist1
2015.03.22
[사드 한국 배치 논란] 전문가들이 제시하는 해법은


사드(THAAD)라고 불리는 미국 고()고도미사일방어 체계의 한국 배치 문제가 안보 논쟁의 ‘블랙홀’로 떠오른 양상이다. 한국을 둘러싼 모든 안보 이슈가 사드에 귀결되기라도 하는 분위기다. 보수냐 진보냐, 혹은 친미냐 친중이냐는 진영에 따라 찬반도 엇갈려 자칫 국론이 두 토막으로 갈릴 판이다.

우리의 필요나 의사보다 미국과 중국의 국익이 더 크게 부각돼 한국이 중간에서 이러지도 저러지도 못하는 난감한 처지에 몰렸다는 지적도 있다. 이러한 상황에서 우리가 어떤 선택을 해야 할지, 어떤 식으로 미국·중국·북한을 대해야 할지 정부의 고민이 깊어지고 있다. 외교안보 전문가인 하영선(서울대 명예교수) 동아시아연구원 이사장과 문정인 연세대 정치외교학과 교수에게 해법을 들어봤다.

-사드 배치가 중요한 문제이긴 하지만 논의가 지나치게 가열돼 오히려 우려가 되고 있는 상황이다.
▶문정인=기본적으로 논의의 순서가 틀렸다. 사드는 최선이 아닌 차차선의 선택이다. 먼저 북한이 핵이나 미사일을 사용하지 않도록 외교적 접근을 강화하는 것이 바람직하다. 다음으로는 선제타격 능력을 키우는 것이다. 그것이 공세적 방어다. 이것마저 제대로 안 될 때 마지막 단계로 고려할 수 있는 것이 사드를 포함한 미사일 방어다. 하지만 최근의 논의에서 예방외교적 접근과 공세적 방어 능력 증강은 거론되지 않고 있다. 영국의 철학자 화이트헤드가 말하는 ‘오도된 구체성의 오류’를 지금 범하고 있는 것은 아닌가 싶다.
▶하영선=사드가 가지고 있는 복합성에 비해 너무 단순화된 논의들이 행해지고 있다. 미·중 사이에 낀 딜레마의 문제 이전에 남북한 간에 존재하는 실질적인 위협의 존재부터 출발해야 한다. 다음 단계로는 북한의 공격용 미사일 무기체계에 자주적으로 대응할 것인가 아니면 추가적으로 미국의 억제체제를 추가적으로 활용할 것인가에 대한 원칙적 합의가 있어야 한다. 마지막으로 한반도의 안보를 위해 활용하는 미국의 억제체제가 중국을 비롯한 동아시아 안보질서에 영향을 미칠 것인가를 검토해야 할 것이다. 이 과정에서 북한의 공격용 미사일 무기체계에 대해 최소한의 억제용 무기체계를 갖추지 않으면 북한의 정치적·군사적 선택을 지나치게 확대시키는 부작용을 가져올 것이다.

-사드가 우리에게 적합한 미사일방어 체계인가.
▶하=남북한이 냉전적 군사 대결을 하는 동안엔 불가피하게 적절한 억제체제를 가져야 한다. 이것은 생존의 문제다. 한반도 평화체제로 가기 위해 군비경쟁을 지나치게 자극하지 않는 최소한의 억제력은 불가피하다. 생존의 확실한 담보를 위해서는 킬 체인이나 한국형미사일방어(KAMD) 체계 같은 저고도 요격과 함께 이중적 생명보험 형태로 고고도 사드에 관심을 갖게 된 거다.
▶문=미사일 방어는 미국적 개념이다. 대서양과 태평양이라는 큰 자연적 장애물이 놓여 있는 지리적 환경에서 대륙간 장거리 미사일이 발사됐을 때 대응하는 방어 시스템이다. 탄도미사일이 대기권 밖으로 나가기 전에 지상 또는 해상에서 요격했는데 실패했을 경우 하강하는 종말 단계에서 쏘는 것이 사드다. 왜 우리나라에서 차차선택인 사드 배치가 최우선적으로 논의되는지 이해가 안 된다.

-우리 정부의 대응이 혼란을 가중시키고 있는 듯하다.
▶문=최근의 사드 논의를 보면 ‘허깨비 게임’이라는 생각이 든다. 미국 정부가 이 문제를 한·미연례안보협의회(SCM)나 한·미군사위원회(MCM)에서 한 번도 공식 거론한 적이 없었다. 언론에서 튀어나온 것이다. 우리 정부 내에서 서로 다른 메시지를 보내면서 갈팡질팡하는 모습이다. 정부의 혼란스러운 모습이 언론의 과열 보도를 부추긴 면이 없지 않아 있다.
▶하=국가안전보장회의(NSC)가 중심을 잡고 부처 간 의견을 교통정리해야 하는데 그러지 못하고 있다는 인상을 준다.

-중국은 과잉대응하는 것 같다. 왜 그렇다고 보나.
▶문=사드 논의가 언론에 의해 증폭이 되니까 중국은 한국 언론에 주목했다. 중국에선 사드의 한반도 배치가 대북 억제력을 높이는 것보다는 한·미·일 3국 미사일 방어체제 구축으로 보는 경향이 강하다. 북한에 대한 위협보다 자신들에 대한 위협으로 인식하게 된 것이다. 사드가 들어오면 한·미·일 남방 삼각축과 북·중·러 북방 삼각축 사이의 대결구조가 생기면서 신()냉전 구도가 생긴다고 본다. 시진핑 중국 국가주석은 신냉전 체제를 원치 않기 때문에 한국 정부가 사드를 들여오지 못하도록 막겠다는 것이다. 중국에선 ‘한국이 돈은 중국에서 벌고 안보는 미국으로부터 얻는다’는 비판이 있다.
▶하=만약 사드의 한반도 배치로 중국이 주관적으로 위기를 느낀다면 불충돌과 불대항을 명분으로 하고 있는 신형대국 관계를 지향하고 있는 미국과 중국이 일차적으로 상호 설득을 해야 한다.

-사드로 북한 미사일 요격이 가능한가.
▶문=설령 요격 능력이 검증됐다 하더라도 한반도 상황에서는 북한의 핵 미사일 발사 조짐을 사전에 탐지했을 때나 요격이 가능할 수 있다. 북한이 유인용(decoy)으로 먼저 재래식 미사일을 발사했을 때 사드 1개 포대가 최대 48기의 요격용 미사일을 다 소모하면 재장전해 대응하기가 기술적으로 힘들다.

-정부에 바라는 점이 있다면.
▶하=우리 정부가 사드 문제가 가지고 있는 국방·외교 등 여러 측면의 복합적 요소를 다양하게 검토하면서도 말을 아끼고 있을 수는 있다. 북한의 공격용 무기체계가 가지는 정치적 그리고 군사적 효율성을 최소화하기 위해서는 확실한 대응군사적 검토가 필요하며, 동시에 우리 힘만으로 부족한 경우에 동맹국 미국의 억제 무기체제를 활용할지의 여부와 이러한 선택이 가져올 중국의 반응에 대한 외교적 검토가 동시에 복합적으로 이뤄져야 한다.
▶문= NSC나 국방부가 전략적으로 생각하면서 국민적 중지를 못 모으는지 안타깝다. 종심이 짧은 한국적 지형은 방어에 굉장히 취약하다. 북한이 미사일을 계속 쏘아대는 것은 우리를 심리적 패닉 상태로 몰아가기 위한 의도가 있다. 이런 것에 대한 종합적인 평가를 거치고 대안을 만든 상태에서 사드가 나와야 대국민 설득이 되는데 그러질 못했다. 현 정부의 외교안보 관리체계에 혁신이 필요하다. 국방부와 외교부의 입장이 충돌하면 NSC가 나서야 한다. 이것을 조율하면서 하나의 통일되고 일관된 정책을 내는 것이 NSC의 역할인데 이번에 전혀 작동하지 못했다. 지금의 NSC는 방관자처럼 보인다.

-미국은 공식 표명을 하지는 않았지만 사드의 한국 배치 의지가 강해 보인다.
▶하=미국은 1차적으로 주한미군 28000만 명의 확실한 안전 확보에서 검토하고 있다. 미국 입장으로선 적절한 억제체제 마련이 중요하기 때문에 고고도미사일방어 무기체계를 개발하고 배치하기 시작한 것이다.
▶문=미국은 처음에는 평택 미군기지에 배치하겠다고 얘기했다. 그러다 갑자기 입장을 바꿔 한국이 구매하도록 하는 듯했다. 우리 국방부도 구매 쪽으로 가다가 여론이 나빠지니까 이번엔 구매 계획이 없다고 했다. 최근에 나온 건 한국이 일부를 구매하고 미국이 주한미군에 자체 배치하는 절충형이 돼 가고 있다. 배후에는 군산복합체의 이해관계가 숨어 있다고 본다. 이들의 교묘한 언론·정치플레이에 우리가 이용당하는 것은 아닌지 잘 생각해야 한다.

-북한 압박을 위해서는 군사적 효율성을 떠나서라도 사드가 필요하다는 주장도 있다.
▶하=남북한 평화체제를 제대로 구축하지 못하고 군사적인 긴장이 계속된다면 생존 전략의 기본 원칙에 따르자면 한국은 최대한의 보험을 들고 싶을 것이다.
▶문=사드라는 보험을 들어도 핵 미사일 요격이 어렵다는 것이 문제다. 요격이 어려워도 가지고 있으면 안심이 되지 않느냐는 논리에는 동의하기 어렵다.

-미국과 중국 사이에 끼어 한국이 곤란한 입장이다.
▶하=갑과 을이 뒤집혀서 미국은 우리보고 주권의 문제라고 하고, 중국도 우리에게 중국의 안보를 충분히 고려해서 결정을 하라고 얘기하고 있다. 그러나 우리는 일차적으로 남북한의 군사적 긴장 구조에서 보험용 무기체계를 선택해야 하며, 만약 사드 배치가 미국과 중국의 신형대국 관계에 부정적 영향을 미친다면 미국과 중국이 일차적으로 조율해서 해결책을 찾아야 할 것이다. 그렇기 때문에 중국 주도의 아시아인프라투자은행(AIIB)에 한국이 참여하는 문제의 타협점이 마련된 것처럼 군사무대가 경제무대보다 훨씬 힘들지만 반드시 양국은 해결책을 찾아야 한다.
▶문=중국이 북한을 설득하라고 하는데 이것은 상당히 잘못된 메시지다. 미국 스스로가 숙제(북한과의 협상)를 해놓고 중국더러 ‘우리가 북한과 협상하는데 당신들도 해라’라고 하는 식이 돼야 한다. 미국이 자신은 평화적 해결 노력을 하지 않으면서 중국에 ‘아웃소싱’ 하려는 태도는 문제가 있어 보인다. 동맹인 미국뿐 아니라 전략적 협력동반자인 중국에도 투명성 있게 솔직하게 얘기해야 한다. 우리 국민여론이 이러니까 당신들이 북한문제에 도움을 주든지, 아니면 우리가 이런 선택을 할 수밖에 없다고 얘기했다면 이렇게까지 꼬이진 않았을 것이다.

-북한·미국·중국에는 각각 어떻게 대응해야 하나.
▶문=사드 논쟁은 북한에 대한 좋은 협상 카드가 될 수도 있다. 이를 계기로 정부 당국자가 북한과 비공개 접촉도 하고 남북 현안 얘기하면서 사드 문제를 카드로 사용할 수 있을 것이다. 남북관계 개선 조짐이 보여야 이 문제가 어느 정도 정리되지 않겠는가. 미국에는 그들이 공식적인 입장표명을 할 때까지 기다려야 한다. 미국 중간 관리들의 한마디에 난리법석 떨지 말고 기다리자. 박근혜 대통령의 중국 채널이 좋으니까 이를 활용하면 된다. 중국에 ‘3NO’ 입장을 명확히 설명하고 변화가 생기면 충분히 협의할 테니까 이것을 외교적 쟁점으로 삼지 말라고 당부해야 한다.
▶하=정부뿐 아니라 언론과 학계도 신중해야 한다. 보수나 진보 모두 구시대적인 냉전구도의 눈으로 보고 있는 것이 아닌가 돌아봐야 한다. 한국이 갑이 되어 한반도와 동아시아의 안정을 충족할 수 있는 해결책을 미국이나 중국에 설득해야 한다. 한반도의 안정을 확보하고, 동아시아에서 초보적으로 진행되고 있는 신형의 미·중 관계를 원점으로 돌리지 않는 제3의 길을 찾자고 제안해야 한다.


한경환 기자 han.kyunghwan@joongang.co.kr

Remarks by the President at the 50th Anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery Marches

Edmund Pettus Bridge
Selma, Alabama
2:17 P.M. CST
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you, President Obama!
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you know I love you back.  (Applause.) 
It is a rare honor in this life to follow one of your heroes.  And John Lewis is one of my heroes.
Now, I have to imagine that when a younger John Lewis woke up that morning 50 years ago and made his way to Brown Chapel, heroics were not on his mind.  A day like this was not on his mind.  Young folks with bedrolls and backpacks were milling about.  Veterans of the movement trained newcomers in the tactics of non-violence; the right way to protect yourself when attacked.  A doctor described what tear gas does to the body, while marchers scribbled down instructions for contacting their loved ones.  The air was thick with doubt, anticipation and fear.  And they comforted themselves with the final verse of the final hymn they sung:
“No matter what may be the test, God will take care of you;
Lean, weary one, upon His breast, God will take care of you.”
And then, his knapsack stocked with an apple, a toothbrush, and a book on government -- all you need for a night behind bars -- John Lewis led them out of the church on a mission to change America.
President and Mrs. Bush, Governor Bentley, Mayor Evans, Sewell, Reverend Strong, members of Congress, elected officials, foot soldiers, friends, fellow Americans:
As John noted, there are places and moments in America where this nation’s destiny has been decided.  Many are sites of war -- Concord and Lexington, Appomattox, Gettysburg.  Others are sites that symbolize the daring of America’s character -- Independence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral.
Selma is such a place.  In one afternoon 50 years ago, so much of our turbulent history -- the stain of slavery and anguish of civil war; the yoke of segregation and tyranny of Jim Crow; the death of four little girls in Birmingham; and the dream of a Baptist preacher -- all that history met on this bridge. 
It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the true meaning of America.  And because of men and women like John Lewis, Joseph Lowery, Hosea Williams, Amelia Boynton, Diane Nash, Ralph Abernathy, C.T. Vivian, Andrew Young, Fred Shuttlesworth, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many others, the idea of a just America and a fair America, an inclusive America, and a generous America -- that idea ultimately triumphed.
As is true across the landscape of American history, we cannot examine this moment in isolation.  The march on Selma was part of a broader campaign that spanned generations; the leaders that day part of a long line of heroes.
We gather here to celebrate them.  We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching towards justice.
They did as Scripture instructed:  “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”  And in the days to come, they went back again and again.  When the trumpet call sounded for more to join, the people came –- black and white, young and old, Christian and Jew, waving the American flag and singing the same anthems full of faith and hope.  A white newsman, Bill Plante, who covered the marches then and who is with us here today, quipped that the growing number of white people lowered the quality of the singing.  (Laughter.)  To those who marched, though, those old gospel songs must have never sounded so sweet.
In time, their chorus would well up and reach President Johnson.  And he would send them protection, and speak to the nation, echoing their call for America and the world to hear:  “We shall overcome.”  (Applause.)  What enormous faith these men and women had.  Faith in God, but also faith in America. 
The Americans who crossed this bridge, they were not physically imposing.  But they gave courage to millions.  They held no elected office.  But they led a nation.  They marched as Americans who had endured hundreds of years of brutal violence, countless daily indignities –- but they didn’t seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before.  (Applause.)
What they did here will reverberate through the ages.  Not because the change they won was preordained; not because their victory was complete; but because they proved that nonviolent change is possible, that love and hope can conquer hate.
As we commemorate their achievement, we are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.  Back then, they were called Communists, or half-breeds, or outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse –- they were called everything but the name their parents gave them.  Their faith was questioned.  Their lives were threatened.  Their patriotism challenged.
And yet, what could be more American than what happened in this place?  (Applause.)  What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people –- unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many, coming together to shape their country’s course? 
What greater expression of faith in the American experiment than this, what greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?  (Applause.)
That’s why Selma is not some outlier in the American experience.  That’s why it’s not a museum or a static monument to behold from a distance.  It is instead the manifestation of a creed written into our founding documents:  “We the People…in order to form a more perfect union.”  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”  (Applause.) 
These are not just words.  They’re a living thing, a call to action, a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny.  For founders like Franklin and Jefferson, for leaders like Lincoln and FDR, the success of our experiment in self-government rested on engaging all of our citizens in this work.  And that’s what we celebrate here in Selma.  That’s what this movement was all about, one leg in our long journey toward freedom.  (Applause.) 
The American instinct that led these young men and women to pick up the torch and cross this bridge, that’s the same instinct that moved patriots to choose revolution over tyranny.  It’s the same instinct that drew immigrants from across oceans and the Rio Grande; the same instinct that led women to reach for the ballot, workers to organize against an unjust status quo; the same instinct that led us to plant a flag at Iwo Jima and on the surface of the Moon.  (Applause.) 
It’s the idea held by generations of citizens who believed that America is a constant work in progress; who believed that loving this country requires more than singing its praises or avoiding uncomfortable truths.  It requires the occasional disruption, the willingness to speak out for what is right, to shake up the status quo.  That’s America.  (Applause.)  
That’s what makes us unique.  That’s what cements our reputation as a beacon of opportunity.  Young people behind the Iron Curtain would see Selma and eventually tear down that wall.  Young people in Soweto would hear Bobby Kennedy talk about ripples of hope and eventually banish the scourge of apartheid.  Young people in Burma went to prison rather than submit to military rule.  They saw what John Lewis had done.  From the streets of Tunis to the Maidan in Ukraine, this generation of young people can draw strength from this place, where the powerless could change the world’s greatest power and push their leaders to expand the boundaries of freedom. 
They saw that idea made real right here in Selma, Alabama.  They saw that idea manifest itself here in America.
Because of campaigns like this, a Voting Rights Act was passed.  Political and economic and social barriers came down.  And the change these men and women wrought is visible here today in the presence of African Americans who run boardrooms, who sit on the bench, who serve in elected office from small towns to big cities; from the Congressional Black Caucus all the way to the Oval Office.  (Applause.)   
Because of what they did, the doors of opportunity swung open not just for black folks, but for every American.  Women marched through those doors.  Latinos marched through those doors.  Asian Americans, gay Americans, Americans with disabilities -- they all came through those doors.  (Applause.)  Their endeavors gave the entire South the chance to rise again, not by reasserting the past, but by transcending the past. 
What a glorious thing, Dr. King might say.  And what a solemn debt we owe.  Which leads us to ask, just how might we repay that debt?
First and foremost, we have to recognize that one day’s commemoration, no matter how special, is not enough.  If Selma taught us anything, it’s that our work is never done.  (Applause.)  The American experiment in self-government gives work and purpose to each generation.
Selma teaches us, as well, that action requires that we shed our cynicism.  For when it comes to the pursuit of justice, we can afford neither complacency nor despair.
Just this week, I was asked whether I thought the Department of Justice’s Ferguson report shows that, with respect to race, little has changed in this country.  And I understood the question; the report’s narrative was sadly familiar.  It evoked the kind of abuse and disregard for citizens that spawned the Civil Rights Movement.  But I rejected the notion that nothing’s changed.  What happened in Ferguson may not be unique, but it’s no longer endemic.  It’s no longer sanctioned by law or by custom.  And before the Civil Rights Movement, it most surely was.  (Applause.)
We do a disservice to the cause of justice by intimating that bias and discrimination are immutable, that racial division is inherent to America.  If you think nothing’s changed in the past 50 years, ask somebody who lived through the Selma or Chicago or Los Angeles of the 1950s.  Ask the female CEO who once might have been assigned to the secretarial pool if nothing’s changed.  Ask your gay friend if it’s easier to be out and proud in America now than it was thirty years ago.  To deny this progress, this hard-won progress -– our progress –- would be to rob us of our own agency, our own capacity, our responsibility to do what we can to make America better. 
Of course, a more common mistake is to suggest that Ferguson is an isolated incident; that racism is banished; that the work that drew men and women to Selma is now complete, and that whatever racial tensions remain are a consequence of those seeking to play the “race card” for their own purposes.  We don’t need the Ferguson report to know that’s not true.  We just need to open our eyes, and our ears, and our hearts to know that this nation’s racial history still casts its long shadow upon us. 
We know the march is not yet over.  We know the race is not yet won.  We know that reaching that blessed destination where we are judged, all of us, by the content of our character requires admitting as much, facing up to the truth.  “We are capable of bearing a great burden,” James Baldwin once wrote, “once we discover that the burden is reality and arrive where reality is.” 
There’s nothing America can’t handle if we actually look squarely at the problem.  And this is work for all Americans, not just some.  Not just whites.  Not just blacks.  If we want to honor the courage of those who marched that day, then all of us are called to possess their moral imagination.  All of us will need to feel as they did the fierce urgency of now.  All of us need to recognize as they did that change depends on our actions, on our attitudes, the things we teach our children.  And if we make such an effort, no matter how hard it may sometimes seem, laws can be passed, and consciences can be stirred, and consensus can be built.  (Applause.) 
With such an effort, we can make sure our criminal justice system serves all and not just some.  Together, we can raise the level of mutual trust that policing is built on –- the idea that police officers are members of the community they risk their lives to protect, and citizens in Ferguson and New York and Cleveland, they just want the same thing young people here marched for 50 years ago -– the protection of the law.  (Applause.)  Together, we can address unfair sentencing and overcrowded prisons, and the stunted circumstances that rob too many boys of the chance to become men, and rob the nation of too many men who could be good dads, and good workers, and good neighbors.  (Applause.)
With effort, we can roll back poverty and the roadblocks to opportunity.  Americans don’t accept a free ride for anybody, nor do we believe in equality of outcomes.  But we do expect equal opportunity.  And if we really mean it, if we’re not just giving lip service to it, but if we really mean it and are willing to sacrifice for it, then, yes, we can make sure every child gets an education suitable to this new century, one that expands imaginations and lifts sights and gives those children the skills they need.  We can make sure every person willing to work has the dignity of a job, and a fair wage, and a real voice, and sturdier rungs on that ladder into the middle class.
And with effort, we can protect the foundation stone of our democracy for which so many marched across this bridge –- and that is the right to vote.  (Applause.)  Right now, in 2015, 50 years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote.  As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed.  Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much blood, so much sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, the Voting Rights Act stands weakened, its future subject to political rancor.
How can that be?  The Voting Rights Act was one of the crowning achievements of our democracy, the result of Republican and Democratic efforts.  (Applause.)  President Reagan signed its renewal when he was in office.  President George W. Bush signed its renewal when he was in office.  (Applause.)  One hundred members of Congress have come here today to honor people who were willing to die for the right to protect it.  If we want to honor this day, let that hundred go back to Washington and gather four hundred more, and together, pledge to make it their mission to restore that law this year.  That’s how we honor those on this bridge.  (Applause.) 
Of course, our democracy is not the task of Congress alone, or the courts alone, or even the President alone.  If every new voter-suppression law was struck down today, we would still have, here in America, one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples.  Fifty years ago, registering to vote here in Selma and much of the South meant guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar, the number of bubbles on a bar of soap.  It meant risking your dignity, and sometimes, your life. 
What’s our excuse today for not voting?  How do we so casually discard the right for which so many fought?  (Applause.)  How do we so fully give away our power, our voice, in shaping America’s future?  Why are we pointing to somebody else when we could take the time just to go to the polling places?  (Applause.)  We give away our power.   
Fellow marchers, so much has changed in 50 years.  We have endured war and we’ve fashioned peace.  We’ve seen technological wonders that touch every aspect of our lives.  We take for granted conveniences that our parents could have scarcely imagined.  But what has not changed is the imperative of citizenship; that willingness of a 26-year-old deacon, or a Unitarian minister, or a young mother of five to decide they loved this country so much that they’d risk everything to realize its promise.
That’s what it means to love America.  That’s what it means to believe in America.  That’s what it means when we say America is exceptional. 
For we were born of change.  We broke the old aristocracies, declaring ourselves entitled not by bloodline, but endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.  We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self-government, of and by and for the people.  That’s why we argue and fight with so much passion and conviction -- because we know our efforts matter.  We know America is what we make of it.
Look at our history.  We are Lewis and Clark and Sacajawea, pioneers who braved the unfamiliar, followed by a stampede of farmers and miners, and entrepreneurs and hucksters.  That’s our spirit.  That’s who we are.
We are Sojourner Truth and Fannie Lou Hamer, women who could do as much as any man and then some.  And we’re Susan B. Anthony, who shook the system until the law reflected that truth.  That is our character.
We’re the immigrants who stowed away on ships to reach these shores, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free –- Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, the Lost Boys of Sudan.  We’re the hopeful strivers who cross the Rio Grande because we want our kids to know a better life.  That’s how we came to be.  (Applause.)
We’re the slaves who built the White House and the economy of the South.  (Applause.)  We’re the ranch hands and cowboys who opened up the West, and countless laborers who laid rail, and raised skyscrapers, and organized for workers’ rights.
We’re the fresh-faced GIs who fought to liberate a continent.  And we’re the Tuskeegee Airmen, and the Navajo code-talkers, and the Japanese Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied. 
We’re the firefighters who rushed into those buildings on 9/11, the volunteers who signed up to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.  We’re the gay Americans whose blood ran in the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge. (Applause.) 
We are storytellers, writers, poets, artists who abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy, and give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.
We’re the inventors of gospel and jazz and blues, bluegrass and country, and hip-hop and rock and roll, and our very own sound with all the sweet sorrow and reckless joy of freedom.
We are Jackie Robinson, enduring scorn and spiked cleats and pitches coming straight to his head, and stealing home in the World Series anyway.  (Applause.)   
We are the people Langston Hughes wrote of who “build our temples for tomorrow, strong as we know how.”  We are the people Emerson wrote of, “who for truth and honor’s sake stand fast and suffer long;” who are “never tired, so long as we can see far enough.”
That’s what America is.  Not stock photos or airbrushed history, or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others.  (Applause.)  We respect the past, but we don’t pine for the past.  We don’t fear the future; we grab for it.  America is not some fragile thing.  We are large, in the words of Whitman, containing multitudes.  We are boisterous and diverse and full of energy, perpetually young in spirit.  That’s why someone like John Lewis at the ripe old age of 25 could lead a mighty march. 
And that’s what the young people here today and listening all across the country must take away from this day.  You are America.  Unconstrained by habit and convention.  Unencumbered by what is, because you’re ready to seize what ought to be. 
For everywhere in this country, there are first steps to be taken, there’s new ground to cover, there are more bridges to be crossed.  And it is you, the young and fearless at heart, the most diverse and educated generation in our history, who the nation is waiting to follow.
Because Selma shows us that America is not the project of any one person.  Because the single-most powerful word in our democracy is the word “We.”  “We The People.”  “We Shall Overcome.”  “Yes We Can.”  (Applause.)  That word is owned by no one.  It belongs to everyone.  Oh, what a glorious task we are given, to continually try to improve this great nation of ours.
Fifty years from Bloody Sunday, our march is not yet finished, but we’re getting closer.  Two hundred and thirty-nine years after this nation’s founding our union is not yet perfect, but we are getting closer.  Our job’s easier because somebody already got us through that first mile.  Somebody already got us over that bridge.  When it feels the road is too hard, when the torch we’ve been passed feels too heavy, we will remember these early travelers, and draw strength from their example, and hold firmly the words of the prophet Isaiah:  “Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength.  They will soar on [the] wings like eagles.  They will run and not grow weary.  They will walk and not be faint.”  (Applause.) 
We honor those who walked so we could run.  We must run so our children soar.  And we will not grow weary.  For we believe in the power of an awesome God, and we believe in this country’s sacred promise.
May He bless those warriors of justice no longer with us, and bless the United States of America.  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.) 

END
2:50 P.M. CST

Rating the Republicans

The New York Times   January 16, 2015    DAVID BROOKS
If the Republican presidential campaign were ''American Idol'' or ''The Voice,'' this would be the out-of-town auditions phase. Governors across the country are giving State of the State addresses, unveiling their visions. Let's spin the chairs and grade the contenders, to see who deserves a shot at the big show.
John Kasich: A. The Ohio governor is easily the most underestimated Republican this year. He just won a landslide victory in the swingiest of the swing states. He carried 86 of Ohio's 88 counties. He won Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, and which President Obama won by 40 points in 2012.
Kasich is the Republican version of Jerry Brown: experienced but undisciplined in an honest, unvarnished way. If he shows he can raise money, and if voters want someone fresh but seasoned and managerial, he might be the guy.
The inaugural address he delivered on Monday was a straight-up values speech. But it wasn't about values the way Pat Robertson used to define them. It was traditional values expressed in inclusive, largely secular form. ''I think the erosion of basic values that made our nation great is the most serious problem facing our state and our nation today,'' he said. ''And I'm not talking about those volatile issues.''
He built his speech around empathy, resilience, responsibility and other virtues: ''You know why this happened? Too fixated on ourselves. It's all about me. And somehow we have lost the beautiful sound of our neighbors' voices. Moving beyond ourselves and trying to share in the experience of others helps us open our minds, allows us to grow as people. It helps us become less self-righteous. Did you ever find that in yourself? I do ... self-righteous.''
Kasich has a long conservative record, but in his speech he celebrated government workers, like the woman who runs his job and family services department. He argued that economic growth is not an end unto itself, especially when it's not widely shared.
Kasich, a working-class kid, spoke as a small government conservative who sometimes uses government to advance Judeo-Christian values. His mantra is, ''When you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he's probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small, but he is going to ask you what you did for the poor.''
Chris Christie: A-minus. Bridgegate did some damage, but it clearly wasn't fatal. Whatever can be said about Christie, he grabs attention -- essential in a crowded field.
Like all smart Republicans in the post-Romney era (yes, we're in it), Christie is working hard to prove he understands the everyday concerns of the poor and the middle class. He spent a good chunk of his address describing his efforts to work with the Democratic mayor of Camden to bring in jobs, fight poverty and reduce crime in that city. It was a bipartisan, government-efficiency pitch: ''We terminated the city police department and, partnering with the county, put a new metro division on the streets with 400 officers for the same price we were paying for 260. ... What are the results? Murder down 51 percent, in what was once called the most dangerous city in America.''
As Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post noticed, Christie defined anxiety as America's most daunting problem. He said that as he traveled the country, ''anxiety was the most palpable emotion that I saw and felt. More than anger, more than fear.'' Christie hasn't quite nailed down the nature of that anxiety, or what to do about it, but he's clearly hit on an essential theme for an era of economic growth but dissatisfaction.
Scott Walker and Mike Pence: B-plus. The Wisconsin and Indiana governors are both versions of what used to be called working-class, Sam's Club Republicanism. Walker never graduated from college.
In their State of the State addresses, both boasted about the same sorts of accomplishments: dropping unemployment rates, state surpluses, rising graduation rates, lower taxes. Walker mentioned jobs programs for people with disabilities. Pence, who has devoted more effort to fighting poverty, touted his new pre-K education program. Both have good records, but neither speech had anything that was narratively or thematically innovative or of much interest to people outside their states.
At this stage in the race it's best to evaluate candidates the way you evaluate pitchers during the first week of spring training. Don't think about polls, donor gossip or who has the front-runner label. Ask who makes the catcher's glove pop loudest. Who has the stuff that makes you do a double take?
Among the governors, Kasich and Christie have shown they can take the values of religious conservatives and use them to inform Republican economic and domestic priorities. That's essential if the party is going retain its business and religious base and also reach the struggling and disaffected.


The Keystone XL Illusion

The New York Times    January 17, 2015    JOE NOCERA
Greg Rickford, Canada's minister of natural resources, was in the United States most of this past week, on a trip that didn't get much attention in the media with so much bigger news swirling about. So let me fill you in.
Rickford spent the first two days of his trip in Washington, where of course debate over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline is underway in earnest in the new Republican-led Senate. The Republican-led House, meanwhile, has already passed a bill giving the go-ahead to the pipeline, which, if it's ever built, will transport heavy crude from the tar sands of Alberta to American refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. And of course President Obama has threatened to veto any such bill, should one land on his desk.
In Washington, Rickford met with his Obama administration counterpart, Ernest Moniz, the secretary of energy. Although the Keystone pipeline was not on the agenda, the two men talked about it anyway. Rickford paid a visit to Heidi Heitkamp, the Democratic senator from North Dakota, who strongly supports the Keystone pipeline. (In addition to the Alberta crude, the pipeline would transport shale oil from North Dakota.)
He met with State Department officials to get a Keystone update; because the pipeline would cross the U.S.-Canada border, the department has to do a review, which it has done several times, always coming down in favor of the project. In several speeches, Rickford talked up the close energy relationship between the United States and Canada, noting that Canada sends three million barrels per day to America -- more than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia combined. He mentioned Canada's new pipeline safety law. He said he thought the Keystone XL pipeline should be approved, which is essentially what Canadian officials have been saying for the past six years.
Then on Wednesday, Rickford went to Texas for two days. This is the part of his trip that really caught my attention. His main focus in Texas was on two new Canadian-controlled pipelines that became operational in mid-December. One is called the Flanagan South pipeline, which cost $2.8 billion. It covers nearly 600 miles, from Pontiac, Ill., to Cushing, Okla. The other pipeline, called the Seaway Twin, runs an additional 500 miles, from Cushing to Freeport, Tex., where the refineries are. It cost $1.2 billion. Guess where some of the oil that is going to run through those pipelines is coming from? Yep -- the tar sands of Alberta.
If you are wondering why the environmental community hasn't been chaining itself to the White House fence to protest these two new pipelines, the way it has with Keystone, the answer is that neither of these pipelines crosses the Canadian border, so they don't require the same complicated approval process that Keystone requires. (The Flanagan South line will connect with a pipeline that already crosses the border.) More to the point, perhaps, they were never the symbol that the high-profile Keystone XL became, so that even the approvals they did require never aroused the same attention from environmentalists.
Yet these new pipelines are going to be carrying some 200,000 barrels per day of the heavy crude mined from the tar sands. True, that is only a third of what the Keystone XL would be able to deliver, but it essentially helps double the amount of tar sands oil that can be exported to the United States. In addition, there will be expanded rail capacity for Alberta's oil, which is a far more dangerous way to move it than a state-of-the-art pipeline.
The point is: With or without Keystone, Canada's tar sands oil is coming to the United States. One of the stated reasons that environmental activists wanted to prevent Keystone from being built was that doing so would force Canada to stop mining the oil. Without Keystone, it was said, Canada would have no means to export it. But that has never been a particularly plausible argument. Even before the opening of these two new pipelines, tar sands oil was coming to the United States, primarily by rail. Indeed, the only thing that can slow it down now is the rapid drop in the price of oil, which is likely to make expensive tar sands crude unprofitable.
Even as the Keystone debate reaches its current crescendo, all that is left, really, is the symbolism. The Republican right claims that Keystone will create jobs. It won't, not to any significant degree. The Democratic left says that the oil Keystone will bring to the Gulf is so dirty, so carbon laden, that it will wreak havoc on the climate. It won't do that either. If the president ultimately decides not to approve Keystone, he will do so knowing full well that he has not stopped the tar sands oil in any meaningful way.
To expect another outcome is, well, a pipe dream. It always was.

Texas Is Sending You a Present

The New York Times   January 17, 2015
Rick Perry!
The man who has been governor of Texas since pterodactyls roamed the plains took his leave at the State Capitol this week. He is not saying anything for sure about running for president. Mum's the word until springtime. However, he recently told a reporter that if voters want to break from the Obama era, ''I am a very clear and compelling individual to support.''
Wow, the Republican race is getting to be like one of those crime shows where the detectives have to paste pictures all over the wall so they can keep the suspects straight. So many old friends popping up this month -- Mitt Romney and now Rick Perry. The man who drove to Canada with the family dog strapped to the car roof and the man who claims he shot a coyote while jogging. The animal lobby had better get out there and see how Jeb Bush feels about wolf hunting.
Almost everybody has a Rick Perry favorite moment. For 99 percent, it's probably the dreaded ''oops'' debate when he announced that as president he was going to shutter three federal agencies -- and then could only think of two.
And, yeah, that one was pretty good. However, I still cherish a television interview Perry did a few years earlier with Evan Smith of The Texas Tribune in which he defended abstinence-only sex education despite the state's astronomical rates of teenage pregnancy.
''It works,'' Perry said defiantly and totally erroneously.
''Can you give me a statistic suggesting it works?'' asked Smith.
''I'm going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works,'' Perry replied. Smith was too discreet to press for details, but let's hope it comes up during the campaign.
Perry had been governor of Texas for more than 14 years, an all-time record. In his farewell speech to the State Legislature, he reminded the lawmakers of all they'd been through together, including hurricanes, wildfires and the tragic disintegration of the Space Shuttle Columbia over Texas in 2003, although Perry called it ''Space Shuttle Challenger,'' which blew up in 1986.
No mention of his pending felony indictment for abuse of power. Perry tried to force a county district attorney to resign by threatening to veto the money for an office she runs that investigates public corruption. It's a complicated story. First you learn that the D.A. in question had been arrested in a rather spectacular drunken-driving case, and you tilt a little toward Perry. Then you discover that two other county D.A.'s were charged with drunken driving during the Perry administration without attracting the wrath of the governor. Then you sort of get distracted by wondering what's going on with Texas district attorneys.
We've got ages to work it out.
Perry bragged about the state's economy, which he often refers to as ''the Texas Miracle.'' Really, we have not heard so much about miracles since Our Lady of Fatima. The state's record of job creation is his big calling card to the presidential league, and once he starts harping on it again we're going to wonder: Has Texas been growing so many jobs because Perry cut taxes and regulations? Or is it because Texas happens to be a state with warm weather, lots of space for cheap housing, a huge border with Mexico and massive oil and gas deposits? Is Perry a great leader or just conveniently located? Eventually, someone will repeat the old Ann Richards joke about being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple.
Perry's signature job-building initiative is something called the Texas Enterprise Fund, which aims to persuade out-of-state companies to move to Texas, or expand there. One of its beneficiaries, Texas Institute for Genomic Medicine, got $50 million in return for creating what Perry said were more than 12,000 jobs. An investigation by The Wall Street Journal revealed the fund folk had been counting every single biotech job created anywhere in the state for the previous six years. Actually the number was more like 10.
But it's great that the governor's ambitions are forcing us to think a lot about Texas, a state that deserves more attention, having been home to only three of the last eight elected chief executives. Not even half! And although lawmakers from Texas currently lead six of the committees in the House of Representatives, that's still under a third.
There's also United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, making all the pre-presidential-campaign stops and offering an option to all of us who are yearning for a vision to the right of Rick Perry. I once threw out the possibility of an entire Republican ticket from the Lone Star State, and many readers desperately wrote to argue that that was unconstitutional. It might be fairer to say that the Constitution isn't crazy about the idea.

We can figure that out down the line. Meanwhile, Perry and Cruz could both be in the presidential debates. Let's see who's better at counting to three.

A fully transparent solar cell that could make every window and screen a power source

08:44 Blooming Post
http://www.bloomingpost.com/2015/03/a-fully-transparent-solar-cell-that.html
Researchers at Michigan State University have created a fully transparent solar concentrator, which could turn any window or sheet of glass (like your smartphone’s screen) into a photovoltaic solar cell. Unlike other “transparent” solar cells that we’ve reported on in the past, this one really is transparent, as you can see in the photos throughout this story. According to Richard Lunt, who led the research, the team are confident that the transparent solar panels can be efficiently deployed in a wide range of settings, from “tall buildings with lots of windows or any kind of mobile device that demands high aesthetic quality like a phone or e-reader.”

Scientifically, a transparent solar panel is something of an oxymoron. Solar cells, specifically the photovoltaic kind, make energy by absorbing photons (sunlight) and converting them into electrons (electricity). If a material is transparent, however, by definition it means that all of the light passes through the medium to strike the back of your eye. This is why previous transparent solar cells have actually only been partially transparent — and, to add insult to injury, they usually they cast a colorful shadow too.

To get around this limitation, the Michigan State researchers use a slightly different technique for gathering sunlight. Instead of trying to create a transparent photovoltaic cell (which is nigh impossible), they use a transparent luminescent solar concentrator (TLSC). The TLSC consists of organic salts that absorb specific non-visible wavelengths of ultraviolet and infrared light, which they then luminesce (glow) as another wavelength of infrared light (also non-visible). This emitted infrared light is guided to the edge of plastic, where thin strips of conventional photovoltaic solar cell convert it into electricity. [Research paper: DOI: 10.1002/adom.201400103- "Near-Infrared Harvesting Transparent Luminescent Solar Concentrators"]


If you look closely, you can see a couple of black strips along the edges of plastic block. Otherwise, though, the active organic material — and thus the bulk of the solar panel — is highly transparent. (Read: Solar singlet fission bends the laws of physics to boost solar power efficiency by 30%.)

Michigan’s TLSC currently has an efficiency of around 1%, but they think 5% should be possible. Non-transparent luminescent concentrators (which bathe the room in colorful light) max out at around 7%. On their own these aren’t huge figures, but on a larger scale — every window in a house or office block — the numbers quickly add up. Likewise, while we’re probably not talking about a technology that can keep your smartphone or tablet running indefinitely, replacing your device’s display with a TLSC could net you a few more minutes or hours of usage on a single battery charge.

The researchers are confident that the technology can be scaled all the way from large industrial and commercial applications, down to consumer devices, while remaining “affordable.” So far, one of the larger barriers to large-scale adoption of solar power is the intrusive and ugly nature of solar panels — obviously, if we can produce large amounts of solar power from sheets of glass and plastic that look like normal sheets of glass and plastic, then that would be big.