Monday I returned home to find my apartment hot as Hell itself. My air conditioner had broken, and I needed to call the emergency repair staff to fix it. However, the management office wasn't sure they would be able to complete the fix that night. I was sweating, literally. My indoor thermometer read 93F. Luckily though, after heading out to the bookstore to cool off, the contractor called me and said he would be there after dinner. (I told him I wasn't home and at the shopping center, so his reply was "I don't want to rush you...I'll get something to eat because it is that time and then come over to your place. Do I have permission to enter?") Struggling to find anything I wanted at the bookstore, I elected to visit a famous seafood restaurant which is usually requires a reservation. But Monday wasn't an ordinary day.

You see, the monsoon, which had been absent for a while came roaring back....dumping rain throughout Cougar Country and beyond. A dissolving tropical storm had fueled the fire and brought temperatures down rapidly over the course of the afternoon. By the time I got home around 10pm, it was actually cool enough to open my window and let in the breeze. Mind you, the air conditioning was fixed and roaring at 75F. But silly me, I figured I might as well enjoy the moisture and left the window open. It wasn't miserable...but it wasn't as fun as I thought. The restaurant meanwhile, let me down a little. They had excellent turtle soup and olive bread....but the scallops and rice pilaf I ordered did not do them justice.

I'd love to tell you that this was only major development since my last post...but it's not.

Duane announced that he's leaving the office for another position. Or should I say, he's moving on to bigger and better things. The bigger thing is his salary, which will almost double. But the better is that he becomes the chief legislative liaison for one of his agencies. That means he and I will probably still get lunch on a regular basis, but we will have to work harder to hang out together.

At the same time, our Director revealed that he's unsure if any of sticking around will receive salary adjustments. However, I'm not jealous of the Duane-ster.  I'm quite content to stay where I am for a while longer and gain a little more experience.

Then of course, there was the news that of all the people in the world, Barack Obama picks Joe Biden  for vice president. I'm pretty disappointed, because I think it's a serious miscalculation by the campaign. Originally, I thought it was predicated on the fact that John Edwards polled very high with Obama but was tarnished by the revelation of sexual impropriety. Having no obvious name in reserve, Obama (I figured) dithered to pick someone better than Edwards.

But I'm coming to realize that this analysis might be wrong. That Biden might have been picked for a more a different reason. What's that you ask? He's as close as you can get to being Hillary Clinton without being Hillary Clinton. He voted for the atrocious bankruptcy bill, like her, and he's got Scranton, Pennsylvania, blue-collar roots like her. And just like Clinton, Joe voted for the war in Iraq. That's not to say he's Joe Lieberman....but he's definitely not Barack Obama. 

What's problematic isn't this however, it's that Biden's selection undermines the crucial difference that Obama used to defeat Hillary Clinton and needs against John McCain in the general election. It's not about experience it's about judgment. Picking Biden, even in the face of Russia's invasion of Georgia calls Obama's bluff. McCain now can continuously assault Obama's "readiness" and win, merely because Barack was tentative this summer. Will it result in a Republican win? Not exactly.

Remember that if the real advantage the GOP has is that their base of states in the West and South have gained electoral votes since 2004, not lost them. That requires Obama to target some of those states with his message and overwhelm McCain there. Given that change is always a more "dangerous" message than the status quo...McCain's ability to hit Obama on "readiness" is a valuable weapon in these swing states to convince voters to stay home. Yes, you heard that right. The GOP's strategy in recent years isn't to win states it's to have the Democratic candidate lose them.

Luckily, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Tomorrow is the start of the college football season.

Ever since John McCain became the Republican nominee, I knew one of my blog posts during the long, tedious summer would be a prediction that President McCain would lead not into war with Iran...but four other...unsuspecting nations. I planned to do a long, detailed explanation for each country being the theatre of not global conflict...but the sort of "small wars of peace" that the US is famous for. But then, while I had some free time on vacation, the Russians went and invaded the Republic of Georgia. So now no one will believe me to know I considered conflict there more likely than with the "Axis of Evil". Still it's true.

So now you might ask....what we the other three?

Myanmar: If you thought it was fitting that a Bush took us back to the Persian Gulf, just wait until President McCain takes us back to Southeast Asia. Rhetoric aside, there's a specific geopolitical angle to this. Myanmar is developing natural gas resources. China is starved for energy and would appreciate not having to buy gas (like Continental Europe) from Russia. Moreover, Myanmar borders the Indian Ocean allows direct sea passage to ...the Middle East. If Myanmar's junta was overthrown, specific resources would need to be shipped through the Straits of Malacca or other navigational choke point that open themselves up to the US Navy. Moreover, US strategy since the World War II has always been to fight "proxy contests" instead of confronting adversary nations head on.

Ecuador: In 2002, the US had this quaint idea: stage a coup and take down Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Despite apparently success, the wily Chavez regained power within two days, thus forever altering history. The White House decided its next attempt at regime change would mean business (to the tune of 120,000 troops). Also, nations across Latin America began to draw away from the US and embrace left of center governments throughout. One of the most recent members of the club is Ecuador, electing Rafael Correa. But unlike Chavez, Correa is more vulnerable to getting the Saddam treatment. Venezuela is a crucial part of the US foreign oil supply network. Ecuador has oil, but has much less influence because its reserves are less accessible. Add in the fact that Colombia, its northern neighbor is a staunch US ally because of the "war on drugs". (Colombia at one point received more foreign aid from the US than any nation except Israel and Egypt.) Chavez and Correa, meanwhile, appear to have sent support to the Colombian rebel group FARC. While that in and of itself may not seem noteworthy, the FARC got involved in the cocaine trade during the 1980s and has been on the American hit list for a while.

The Horn of Africa: Despite having nightmares about its participation in Somalia and absence in Rwanda, the US maintains a relatively large military presence in Djibouti. Amazingly Uncle Sam has been mostly a spectator as the Chinese have all but colonized Africa for its natural resources. While everyone knows about Darfur and the Sudan's oil exportation to China, few realize Zambia has just as cozy a relationship with Beijing over copper. The Sudan has it's own port, but it's on the Red Sea and requires passage past....Djibouti. Still, just to the east is Somalia still a failed state controlled by warlords. Eritrea continues to fight for independence against Ethiopia in the other direction leaving the port of Djibouti as a vital link to the sea. Any number of scenarios could trigger an entrenched military campaign.

At this point you are asking yourself, in the midst of the Iraq War...why would we commit more resources to fight these wars at the ends of the earth against seemingly harmless opponents? The answer is really simple: John McCain is a neoconservative. Incredibly, George W. Bush is not, and neither is Vice President Cheney. As I've stated before, the only reason the US invaded Iraq in 2003 was to thwart collapse of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. Everyone in the Administration had their pet reason to do it (or not) but it was political economy pure and simple that made the war a very easy sell on Wall Street.

John McCain though, is a neoconservative. He was the darling of guys like Bill Kristol during the 2000 Republican primary. Neoconservative, moreover, are much more fearful of China than countries like Russia or even organizations like Al Qaeda. However, the neoconservatives are not interested in provoking a full-fledged conflict and would much rather like to starve the beast by hurting friendly regimes to it.

That's what makes the Georgia-Russian conflict the most intriguing of the four. McCain acts very hawkish to Moscow but ignores the fact that it was Georgian activity in South Ossetia that presaged the Russian assault. Moreover, the infamous Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline suffered a explosion and fire on August 5th. Within two days, Georgia President Saakashvilli had decided to make precedent by sending Georgian forces into South Ossetia itself. Moscow had already declared that if such an event occurred it would retaliate. Within hours it did, raising many more questions than it answered.

My apartment complex is now a veritable hive of activity, with the new academic year being imminent at Sonoran State. You'd figure this would translate into another boisterous and rollicking Sunday at the pool...but this was hardly the case. A few hardly souls were found, but for a while I was floating in my chair alone....this can easily happen at 5:30pm or so...but this was 3:30pm and many the usual suspects were nowhere to be found.

Generally speaking, part of the reason I go to the pool on a regular basis is to meet my neighbors. (Our units have washer/dryers en suite so there are no chance encounters in the laundry room.) But the more I go and find no one, the more I realize that I have almost as much fun when I have the place to myself (which happens more than you think).

More importantly, I had some time to think. Spending as much time away from Alta Sonora as I did, it became to easy to question what I was doing there. But towards the end, it began to make sense. They way I would categorize it broadly is that there are still challenges for me here, still things to accomplish. Moreover, I am beginning to figure out just what I value as a person, albeit slowly.

If this seems a little vague, consider this conversation I had with Rita recently. In it, I confessed that throughout my life there had been so much upheaval and change, losing both parents and constantly being forced into new circumstances, that I didn't feel comfortable investing in life. Everything and everyone was something/someone to be endured not to be savored. During college, I briefly felt those feelings were behind me...only to return during grad school.

My ambitious visions of travel foundered on the notion that I would always have to go alone. My endless appetite for new experiences was sated by a budget that could barely afford anything. And my sense of romance evaporated, realizing that it was better left for life after my education.

As a result, I had no real affinity pairings when I moved here. I had no groups to join, no associates to be a part of because I lacked any social connectivity in Los Angeles. It wasn't that I lacked friends, it was that I lacked identity to those who were not my friends. And yes, identity is the lodestar of the Facebook era. For the greatest asset in my generation is not wealth or power, but intellectual property.

My vacation is over, and with it the lull in blog postings. It was hardly the most ambitious trip I ever took: a little over a week with the Oleksy's in Seattle, and then another week in Los Angeles visiting among other people, my sister. While I did a little sightseeing in the Northwest, that wasn't the case in L.A. as I had numerous friends to catch up with. Moreover, gas prices began to tumble just as I was heading out of town.

Airline fees however, were just beginning to percolate.

I carefully researched my options because I needed three flights. One from Pueblo Grande to Seattle, another from Seattle to Los Angeles and then a final leg home. The lowest bidder was a melange of flights on Alaska Airlines, United, and Delta for about $330. However the LA-PHX portion would be on a prop plane for an afternoon flight in monsoon season...uh no. So I instead paid almost a hundred dollars more to fly on US Airways roundtrip. Moreover, I was certain to book the ticket before the onset of their bag fee in July. I thought I was home free.

Cue the loud buzzer noise. Wrrrrrong.

Sitting with the Oleksy's one night in their den, we were watching "The Tonight Show" when Jay Leno quipped about US Airways decision to no longer serve any complimentary beverages and instead charge $2 for even a bottle of water. Now this, I didn't like. Airplane cabins are not pressurized to sea level, but instead about $6,000. As as a result it's that much easier to get dehydrated aboard than in your normal daily routine.

Of course I was also on vacation in 2006 when Michael Chertoff "decided" to prohibit liquids in carry-on luggage because of a prior terrorist plot to mix Gatorade with other agents and cause an explosion. Once you got over the "this is an episode of 'Mytbusters' right" reaction it dawns on you just how arbitrary such "national security" decisions must be. (On a separate note, now everyone is required to take off their shoes at the security cordon six years after Richard Reid failed to prove it was much of a threat.)

So you can't take liquids past security, and you can't expect a free beverage on board. So that means...wait a minute...you have to buy a $3.50 bottle of Powerade in the terminal. And since you pay sales tax on that greatly inflated price...everyone wins....local tax coffers, the airlines, the TSA and who knows who else. Now of course, I only bought the Powerade because I was battling a spate of diarrhea that day. I brought with me red plastic cups and empty water bottles to, you guessed it, fill them at the water fountains next to my gate. Currently, this is perfectly legal. Of course, drinking only water over a long enough time frame will kill you. And that assumes you want to and can carry the several pounds multiple litres of water weigh. So my strategy only works well on a flight that's fairly short, on a longer one (think domestic not international) where you can drink something that isn't water before or after.  The other option is to...pay up.

Now you would think, the way airline spokesmen talk about these new levies that there would be some incredible economic logic behind them. But as I'm about to show you, that's not really true. The reason for US Airways' decision on beverages had nothing to do with a break even analysis on Coca Cola priced at $2 a can and oil at $140 a barrel. It's really about this:

US Airways, tagged by many on Wall Street as the major airline with the biggest risk of running low on cash should high fuel prices persist, is more than $179 million richer after a stock offering Thursday.

The Tempe airline sold 21.85 million shares to Merrill Lynch at $8.50 a share. The airline had given no hint it had been considering such a move to bolster its finances.

It said in a statement it would use the funds raised, minus operating expenses, for "general corporate purposes."

Company officials declined to comment, but analysts say US Airways was simply taking advantage of a surge in its stock price over the past month as oil prices have plunged.

US Airways' stock has more than quadrupled since hitting an all-time low of $1.45 in mid-July as oil prices neared $150 a barrel. On Thursday, oil stood at $115, a rapid decline that puts it in bear-market territory. [link]

See, adding new revenue streams is one thing. But promising new revenue as a means to increase cash flow from the stock and bond markets is far more lucrative. Why? Because there's an element of arbitrage when using new taxes to pay for bonds or new fees to raise your stock price. You reduce your risk that the revenue won't materialize and you gain the expected value of the revenue up front instead of waiting for it to come in.

The article from above goes on to reveal what to expect in the future:

US Airways' stock was among the hardest hit as oil prices surged and, in turn, has been leading the industry on the upswing. Analysts are projecting the industry could return to profitability next year if oil doesn't spike again. [Ibid.]

Notice no mention of the fee being repealed, right? That's because the major airlines assume that consumers won't see a pretty obvious disconnect...high oil prices caused the need for these new fees (they say) and as soon as the airlines picked which ones to implement suddenly oil prices fell. But instead of canceling these new fees in light of oil's decline, notice airlines are trying to exact even more new charges to generate revenue. This is because the rapid decline in oil is causing airline stocks to rise quickly and tempt them to issue more and more stock at potentially inflated prices and pocket the cash.

Of course, the new fees might not generate that much revenue in which case several airlines might fail. Laugh if you want, but we could be only a year or two away from an Amtrak-like solution for air travel in the country. You might think that idea stinks...but take heart. Most of Amtrak's delays have everything to do with the fact their trains must get permission to travel on private rail lines across the country and cannot preempt commercial traffic. There's no similar problem with the nation's air space.

In the meantime don't expect me to fly US Airways any time soon. Even Islam supposedly requires that the thirsty be given water. And that standard applies in the some of the world's harshest deserts like the Sahara, but apparently not at 30,000 feet.