bobreuschlein

A topnotch WordPress.com site

Archive for the month “April, 2014”

Military Political Domination

Military States Political Dominance                                                                 

Among the effects of high military spending on a society include the dominance of the national security state and those states most economically involved in that state.  These are the military states, as I have come to call them, and I identify them by whether they rank top 25 or below on per capita military spending.  Although I usually stop there for convenience, the Defense department may not be enough to describe a military state.  Other departments to include are usually Homeland Security, Space, and Energy.  Veterans Affairs and Interest on the National Debt are also directly related to military spending, but are not economically destructive to the society in the same way military spending redirects active economic resources away from the civilian manufacturing economy.  Veterans Affairs and Interest are transfer programs not unlike the insurance nature of most other government services.   

Because the US Statistical Abstract has charts of Defense Spending by state and per capita by state, that is the easiest measure to use to define a military state.  The military states dominated the elected presidency completely during the Cold War for the eleven elections from 1948 to 1988.  Seven times a major political party nominated someone from a low military state and all of them lost.  In four of those seven cases, a military state candidate from a smaller state beat a low military state candidate from a larger state. In the 1984 per capita military spending states, the home states of one term presidents were slightly over the national average military spending per capita, and the two term presidencies were about double the national average.  During the Cold War military spending dominated more strongly than since then, but military spending is still very dominant today, but with the inclusion of the CIA presidencies from the low military spending states of Arkansas and Illinois added into the mix.  One hundred million dollars a year of drug profits from the Contra War of the eighties helped make the Arkansas economy the strongest in the nation over the years of the Clinton governorship.  Obama was one of eight chosen students for the first class of former Carter national security advisor Zbignieu Brzezinski, where he first visited the staging grounds of the Afghanistan War against the Soviets in Pakistan 1981 and later working for the CIA front company Business International in 1983.  A Pakistani politician (who later served as acting president when Musharraf resigned) was asked by Brzezinski to watch over the fair haired boy Obama.                                                                  

Other than the presidency, the Speaker of the House is the next most militarized institution of government, followed closely by the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Supreme Court, the presidential Cabinet, and the Leadership of Congress.  Those groups were about 80% or better from high military spending states.  When leadership changes hands between parties, the new majority party is usually more militarized by state background and the minority party usually becomes less militarized, regardless of political party.  Although Obama and Hillary were both from low military spending states in 2008, Obama won 14 of 15 highest per capita military spending states including DC, so he was clearly the high military spending state choice in the primaries.  Hillary won slightly more votes and if delegates had been awarded like the electoral college she would have been nominated with 62% of the delegates, but Obama’s two to one lead in caucus states won him the nomination.  Operation Mockingbird, the CIA program to control the US press, may have contributed to Obama’s win, as one famous Saturday Night Live skit indicated the Obama preference of the press.  Rank order of the top 25 per capita military states in 2007:  DC, VA, AK, HI, CT, MD, AL, MS, MO, AZ, TX, MA, SC, WA, UT, ME, GA, ND, CO, VT, KS, OK, NH, KY, CA.  Note the complete exclusion of the large industrial states of the Great Lakes region of the nation, as coastal and Southern states make up the new aristocracy of modern politics.                                                                                                  

Link to stories and stats by president of the last century of militarism:

https://www.academia.edu/4044532/US_PRESIDENT_Military_Economy_Stories_1910-2009

Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein

bobreuschlein@gmail.com best contact    608-230-6640 to leave message    www.realeconomy.com  more info

Advertisements

President Truman’s Cold War

Much of the crazy militarism of the modern era didn’t have to be that way.  The lack of experience with the New Deal by a naïve President Harry Truman gave us many poor choices after Roosevelt died. Had the 1944 Democratic Convention been allowed to re-nominate Henry Wallace for Vice President the Cold War may well have been avoided.  Henry Wallace had about 63% of the first ballot when he needed 67%.  Because Harry Truman wasn’t part of the ticket when Pearl Harbor was attacked, he did not know we had cracked the code of Japanese radio transmissions.  Roosevelt knew our provocation of cutting off oil sales to the Japanese in October 1941 had forced them to attack.  To get oil, they needed to seize Indonesia from the Europeans and America was blocking the way in the Phillipines.  Thanks to Teddy Roosevelt’s attack on Manilla Bay as acting Naval Secretary in 1898, we had gone on to take the Phillipines in 1899.  The Phillipine Islands were sitting astride the trade routes between Japan and Indonesia, so Japan knew they also needed to take the Phillipines to secure their new oil supply.  So they decided to attack and weaken our fleet in Hawaii to give themselves a chance in the war.  Then they underplayed their hand by not taking Hawaii in the first blow of the war.  But Truman was not an insider when the aircraft carriers were deployed out to sea to save them for afterwards.  The obsolete battleships were left to be destroyed to anger the American public enough to get Congress to declare War.  So years after the War, when the mayor of Hiroshima asked Truman why he had chosen to use the atomic bomb on them, he replied “had not Pearl Harbor happened, that would not have been necessary.”  This lie hid the truth that Truman wanted to show how powerful we were to the Soviets and Stalin, in an attempt to intimidate the Russians.  The generals were all opposed to using the bomb on a Japanese city, knowing the Japanese would surrender soon after the Russians entered the war against them.

Roosevelt had secured the Russian commitment to attack Japan before he died, and Truman had to live with that commitment, even if he had second thoughts about the arrangement.  Woodrow Wilson had American troops attacking the Red Army in Tapananja, Russia, near Murmansk inside the Arctic Circle one year to the very day after World War I had ended.  Truman wanted to reverse the course of the wartime alliance between Roosevelt and Stalin and continue our capitalist efforts to crush the communist economic experiment in the crib before it had a chance to possibly prove itself the better system.  So the Cold War was a necessity for Truman while Roosevelt and Wallace may have given the United Nations a better chance to operate in cooperation with the Soviets.

Because Truman wasn’t part of the New Deal, he did not understand how much we had grown before the war, 86%.  We only took the last small steps of a long journey back to prosperity with the war.  We grew only 17% in the four war years and the two post war recession years.  So Truman bought the myth that the War brought us out of the Great Depression.  Armed with the Keynesian Militarism theory it was easier for him to break with American military tradition of a small army between wars and create the standing army our forefathers had all warned us about since the time of Washington.  While the Soviets had lost 15 million in the war and Europe averaged a loss of 5% of its population, we had skated by with only a 0.3% loss of our population in the war.  So everyone in Europe was thoroughly sick of war, including the Russians.  But a major conference was held in Paris in 1947 and 2000 US journalists descended on the town asking everyone if they thought the Russians were coming.  It succeeded in planting the thought of the unthinkable in European minds.  Then we passed the 1947 National Security Act over the opposition of the War Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  We created the CIA and used the old nazi spy network against the Russians, since we had no agents there, giving our CIA an ugly tinge to start with.

The CIA promptly created Operation Mockingbird to influence our own press on national security issues and succeeded so well that today we are only 47th in the world in press freedom according to Reporters Without Borders, well behind Canada 10th, Germany 16th, Japan 22nd, and Britain 28th.  We broke deals made at the end of the war about the Balkans and Greece, and we accused the Russians of religious persecution when they put a Nazi collaborator priest on trial.  Then McCarthyism at home cemented the Cold War structure in place, as Eisenhower doubled the percent of the economy for the military in the fifties over the late forties Truman years.

Link to stories and stats by president of the last century of militarism:

https://www.academia.edu/4044532/US_PRESIDENT_Military_Economy_Stories_1910-2009

Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein

bobreuschlein@gmail.com best contact

608-230-6640 to leave message

www.realeconomy.com  more info

15 Year Pause: Earth Warming

The headlines of my local paper September 20, 2013 stated “New Report Shows That Global Warming is Slowing Down” from Karl Ritter of the Associated Press.  His article states that “The heating of Earth’s surface appears to have slowed in the past fifteen years even though greenhouse gas emissions are rising.”  The IPCC report has no real answer, but tries to fake it’s way through with some talk about the oceans absorbing the heating.  It is true that there’s no new global high temperature year since the last record set in 1998.  My 1991 paper “Natural Global Warming” first reports my discovery of the Earth cycle.  The 200 expert areas included in the report neglect to include my theory of the 54 year global warming cycle.  Supporting the 54 year cycle is Klyashtorin’s work showing a very high La Place transform result for the 55 year cycle over a 1420 year period based on Greenland ice core data.

The 54 year cycle is removed from the global warming data by using a 55 year moving average.  When you remove the cycle the straight line global warming nature of the planet emerges.  The line is sideways with no warming up until the middle year of the moving average reaches the year 1910. Then from 1911 through 1973 the moving average becomes a new straight line with a slope of 0.95 degrees Fahrenheit per century. After 1974 the slope doubles into a straight line with a new slope of 2 degrees Fahrenheit per century.  The 1911 to 1973 line correlates at the almost perfect level of 0.998, perfect to two decimal places.  The second line from 1974 to1983 again correlates strongly at 0.997, also a perfect fit to two decimal places.  The extension through present time appears to continue fitting.  With the evidence of the 1910-1911 change and the 1973-1974 change I expect the next change to take one cycle later to show up.  2025 is 27 years after the last peak global warming temperature of 1998 and would be the cold year at end of this temperature pause half cycle. That would end it about the year 2025 and begin the next one 2026.

My own analysis of 56 events of a 54 year cycle nature including temperature turning points, major weather events, major economic turning points and events, and major wars.  I have rationally connected these three realms, the natural, the economic, and the political (wars).  Of these 56 events, 25 are exact year fits, with an average of 1.32 years off for all 56 events.

I call it the Earth Cycle because there is a Gaia like quality to the cycle, as if the Earth were alive.  The land rushes into the hot phase and the ocean tempers the land in the cooling phase.  Because the 55 year moving average consists of three straight lines, the power of the Earth will not be tampered with as the cycle completes the oceanic cooling phase.  By that I mean that the moving average remains linear throughout the complete cycle, and only adjusts upward at the beginning of a new land heating phase.

Comparing the Northern and Southern Hemisphere heating shows that there are two 54 year global warming cycles, one more oceanic (water like: more floods and coastal impacts) lead by the Southern Hemisphere and another land like (more droughts and continent interior impacts) lead by the Northern Hemisphere.  Hence the Southern Hemisphere is hotter than the Northern Hemisphere from 1861 to 1920 for 45 of the 60 years.  Then the Northern Hemisphere is hotter than the Southern Hemisphere from 1921 to 1968 for 45 of the 48 years.  So a complete double cycle is 108 years.

The math of the global moving average is clear evidence of a global warming regime that changes only when a new cycle begins, and we are still 12 years away from that point.  No new global warming spurt like 1971 to 1998 will occur before the end of  27 year half cycle begun after 1998.  Because the nature of the cycle comes from the different solar evaporation rates of ocean versus land, all the nuances of the cycle reflect this drought first flood second cycle.  All of this is about the nature of the sun, the land, and water.

Here is an extended version of this press release:

https://www.academia.edu/6733709/15_Year_Global_Warming_PAUSE

Here is the chart that caused Futurists in Chicago to drop their jaws and pull out there cell phone cameras:

https://www.academia.edu/4090273/TEMPERATURE

Here is my fourth power point presentation last year, used for the World Future Society on July 20, 2013:

https://www.academia.edu/4044447/CLIMATE_WAR_CYCLE

Here is a reader friendly narrative of the cycle:

https://www.academia.edu/6002772/WEATHER_CYCLE

Here is a list of 56 prominent examples of the cycle:

https://www.academia.edu/4101856/EVENTS_Weather_Economy_War_56List

Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein

bobreuschlein@gmail.com best contact

608-230-6640 to leave message

www.realeconomy.com  more info

Wargames, Defense Strategy

1962 Milton Bradley game “Summit” used peace economics principles in its strategy game of world conquest.  For every two factories each turn you could either build a military base or another factory.  So if you played a defensive game militarily while you built up your economic strength, you could win in the late stages of the game with superior economic power.  That was America’s national war strategy until after World War II.  Then we turned our back on the founding fathers and established a permanent standing army.  Unfortunately Eisenhower took the side of the president and secretary of state against the traditionalists of the War Department and Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Later Eisenhower doubled Truman’s five percent of the economy for war in the late forties to ten percent of the economy in the fifties, as low military Japan and Germany grew at three times our rate in the fifties.  The Marshall plan provided only 10% of the internally generated capital of those two countries that decade.  Eisenhower got wise too late in his farewell address.

I didn’t have any confidence at all until the third grade when I got a 100 on my first arithmetic test.  After that I grew to love numbers and math and games.  A Time Life book on Mathematics was one of my early treasures.  We four kids played a lot of games together and I won at least my share, probably a little more than my share of Monopoly games.  At age 11 I discovered Avalon Hill wargames.  I played my older brother but never let him win a single game.  Then at 14 I subscribed to the Avalon Hill General and put in opponents wanted ads.  Soon I was spending 15 hours weekly on games over the ten year period 1964 to 1974.  I published a couple articles in the Avalon Hill General in 1967 and also one in Strategy and Tactics magazine.  Those articles helped me win the Math and Science Award at my high school.  I also tied for highest in the State of Wisconsin Mathematics Association of America contest that year.  In 1968 I was elected Senator in the International Federation of Wargaming and in 1969 was appointed Coordinator of Wargames in the largest wargaming club at the time.

Gary Gygax, who went on to create “Dungeons and Dragons” lost decisively to me in a play by mail game of “Battle of the Bulge,” Walter Cronkite’s favorite game.  Using the chess system, I developed a wargaming rating twice as high above average as the second highest rated gamer.  I had a 19-1 record.  In 1972 I supported George McGovern “in spite of” his opposition to the war, as I had been reading Newsweek cover to cover for years by then.  I cried the night my namesake 3rd cousin once removed Bobby Kennedy died.  Mom was extremely proud of her Irish heritage and born to a Catholic family, so the first Catholic President was a big deal.  Gary Gygax created the first wargaming convention in August 1968, called the Geneva Convention because it was held in his home town of Lake Geneva, WI.  I had to follow immediately with the Madison Wargaming Convention from June 1969 to 1972.  I turned it over to someone else as I graduated college.  Attendance had grown 50% per year, quadrupling in three years from 24 to 98.  Wargamers were a small elite group as one third were in high school, one third in college and 15% had graduate degrees.  Some were in ROTC, some liked something more complicated and real than chess, like me.

Here is the seven page Defense Strategy chapter of my first book Peace Economics:

https://www.academia.edu/4475604/DEFENSE_STRATEGY

Isn’t it good to know that my military strategy experience didn’t go to complete waste?

Dr. Peace,

Dr. Bob Reuschlein

www.realeconomy.com (connects to all my websites)

bobreuschlein@gmail.com (best way to contact)

608-230-6640 (leave message, phone number first)

Civil Rights 54 Year Cycle

The daughter of the man named Brown in the famous Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court case decided in 1954 (decided when she was 4 years old) came to Madison, Wisconsin this week.  She spoke in Anderson Auditorium at the same Edgewood where I earned my High School Diploma and much later my Doctorate in Educational Leadership.  On her power point were two other epic events of the long civil rights struggle.  The first desegregation case was in 1849 vs. City of Boston.  Then came the famous “Separate but Equal” decision of Plessey vs. Ferguson in 1896.  Putting these all together with the election of the first Black President in 2008, you have four Kondratiev Wave points in a row.  The perfect 54 year cycle points would be 1846, 1900, 1954, and 2008.  The first two are three years late and four years early.  The last two are perfect fits, 1954 and 2008.

The Progressive Era cycle also fits this pattern of the 54 year cycle, also coming at the height of the economic growth cycle and around the secondary wars cycle that also occurs around peak economic growth.  The Abolition of Slavery era begins with the publication of the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1852.  54 years later in the turn of the century Progressive Era, in 1906 the State of Oregon adopts a comprehensive set of reforms including direct election of United States Senators, citizen ballot measure initiatives, and citizen approval of excessive local government budget increases.  54 years later in 1960 in the midst of the civil rights struggle a progressive Democrat is elected in part appealing to black voters.  President Kennedy challenged the Military Industrial Complex, avoided nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis, upstaged the Federal Reserve with silver certificates, started the moon landing race, the Peace Corps, and introduced civil rights and medicare legislation passed after his death.  Fifty four years later in 2014 we are fighting the anti-civil rights movement of the Tea Party election four years ago with the Uprising in Wisconsin, Occupy Wall Street, and Moral Mondays in North Carolina.  Nationally we have passed historic health care for all legislation.

Here in Wisconsin, about half a million protestors over four weeks objected to Governor Scott Walker’s public union busting measure that came out the day Mubarak abdicated in Egypt over protests, February 11, 2011.  This 2011 action corresponds to the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1957 exactly 54 years before.  Then the effort was to make the South more like the North, now the effort is to make the North more like the South.  Civil Rights then, anti-rights now.  Then in Wisconsin we had the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy branding everyone a communist with his Army McCarthy hearings of 1953, 58 years before Scott Walker.  This time scale closely simulates that in the first paragraph of this press release.  So indeed Civil Rights history repeats itself again with the national attempt to use any means necessary by Republicans to destroy the Democratic Party, minority rights to vote, unions right to exist, and the first black President.  Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan spoke eloquently in favor of a $700 billion economic recovery package on February 14, 2002, but denies such bipartisan relief to all Americans because the President is a Democrat now.  Definition of Treason:  the crime of betraying one’s country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.  Synonyms:  treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness.  The first part of this definition seems a bit too harsh for the times, but the last underlined part seems to describe the current level of extreme obstructionism of the so-called “loyal opposition” in congress today.  “For Some Reason” they seem to reject entirely the Barack Obama presidency.

Here’s a link to 56 events of the 54 Year Cycle:

https://www.academia.edu/4101856/EVENTS

Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein  608-230-6640

www.realeconomy.com

bobreuschlein@gmail.com

Finding the Earth Cycle

When is the cycle going to adjust again?

This was the final question asked at my presentation to the World Future Society last July.  It took a few months but I finally have the answer.  Last Fall the fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out.  The headlines stated “New Report Shows That Global Warming is Slowing Down” from Karl Ritter of the Associated Press.  His article states that “The heating of Earth’s surface appears to have slowed in the past fifteen years even though greenhouse gas emissions are rising.”  It is true that the East Anglia data everyone uses shows no new global high temperature year since the last record set in 1998.  This is where the 200 expert areas included in the report exclude my theory of the 54 year global warming cycle.  This may earn me a Nobel some day and the writer who covers me may earn a Pulitzer.

The math I present is clear cut evidence of a global warming regime that changes only when a new cycle begins, and we are still 12 years away from that point, so no new global warming spurt like the last 1971 to 1998 will occur before the next rise period 2025 to 2052 as the ocean cooling phase of global warming will not relent until completely exhausted by 2025.

Here is the chart that caused Futurists in Chicago to drop their jaws and pull out there cell phone cameras:

https://www.academia.edu/4090273/TEMPERATURE

Although I used a 54 year cycle in my 1986 economic model and knew there was a weather component to the cycle, like most people I considered the cycle an economic cycle mainly.  My war cycle model for the 1986 book was based on severe war casualties delaying the onset of the next war.  Only those innocent or ignorant of the true cost of a major war are foolish enough to try it again in about 50 years.  What really got me going was an 1895 to 1988 data set for Spring precipitation and Summer heat departures.  There really were only three superheated data points in that time, 1934, 1936, and 1988.  These three were a similar 2.5 degrees above normal where no other dates exceeded 1.7 degrees.  And the length of the cycle was either 54 or 52 years, stunning accuracy.  Another amazing characteristic was that the cumulative departure from average for precipitation zeroed out every nine years.  The one exception was the twenty year period 1930 to 1950, which zeroed out, but left the thirties full of droughts and the forties full of floods.  The precision was astonishing.  The next step was to examine various slices of the Earth apple to see what was really going on here.  Mainly with Trends 90 put out by the Carbon Dioxide Information Center in Oakridge, Tennessee and other books, I came up with 14 long term temperature data sets and 2 long term precipitation data sets, then endlessly pored over them for patterns.  I used mult-year averagings to spot true tops and true bottoms.

What was most impressive to me was the sudden jump in temperature of about four or five degrees in the Northern Latitudes data set from 1920 to 1921.  Something was happening then, but I didn’t quite know what.  Because this was the strongest jump in all the data sets, this was the smoking gun.  The Northern Latitudes responded even more forcefully than the Northern Lands.  Hence North Africa was not a factor, probably too tropical to impact the whole Earth.  North Latitude meant Eurasia, North America, and the Northern Latitudes Ocean were all moving up.  The land in this area was driving the ocean higher next to it, hence driving the whole system.  Then the final key to the puzzle came with the data sets for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.  Here finally was the key to the secret of the 54 year cycle.  1920 was the last year in a 60 year pattern of Southern Hemisphere being hotter than the Northern Hemisphere.  1921 was the first year of the new Northern Hemisphere hotter period of 48 years.  There were only fifteen exception years in the Southern 60 year pattern, and only 3 exception years in the Northern 48 year pattern.  This is consistent with a wide variety of data showing that the land is the volatile element in the Earth system and the Ocean is the calming element in the Earth system.  This all lead to my 1991 paper “Natural Global Warming”.  In the nineties I created a long list of 54 year cycle events just by following the news.  The big events were obvious, and almost always cyclical.  My list of 56 events is actually a short list of just major events.

Then in November 2012 I tried using a 55 year moving average on the commonly recognized global warming data from East Anglia.  The results were stunning again (by now an old story for me, the luck would not quit, but it was all real).  The moving average was flat until 1910, moves up at a one degree Fahrenheit rate per century from 1911 to 1973, then doubles the rate per century to 2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1974 to 1983.  With one being perfect, the correlations on the last two climbing segments are .998 and .997 respectively.  And the trend line from 1984 to 2010 looks like there will be no change in the trend when we look back 27 years with all the data needed to plot the central year of a 55 year moving average.  With fifty people in the room and jaws dropping and cell phone cameras clicking all over the front row at the key slide, the World Future Society has confirmed my results.  The last skeptical question has led me to figure the final part of the puzzle out.  When will the next uptick in temperature trend begin?  I am now confident that will be the year 2025, 27 years after the 1998 last global warming peak.  When I describe the cycle as 27 years of warming and 27 years of cooling (or greatly reduced warming), that’s only half the story.  This graph proves the power of Gaia.  When the United States warms from 1913 to 1940, the land has driven a new cycle into being with help from increased solar energy.  Then the ocean takes over and calms the fever of the land for the balance of the cycle from 1940 to 1967.  The evidence resides in the droughts of the thirties and the floods of the forties as the great shift from land dominance to ocean dominance begins.  Because this is one continuous phenomenum the warming rate stays constant until the new cycle, when a new solar burst and carbon dioxide increase drive the rate higher.  The calming ocean holds the system in place until it is ready to “let go” in a new round of cyclic activity when the rate will no doubt ratchet up another notch.

Here is my fourth power point presentation last year, used for the World Future Society on July 20, 1913:

https://www.academia.edu/4044447/CLIMATE_WAR_CYCLE

Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein 608-230-6640

www.realeconomy.com   bobreuschlein@gmail.com

Post Navigation