August 21, 2008 at 12:32 am
(Political)
The Plain Dealer report on Stephanie Tubbs-Jones’ shocking passing today is probably the most complete.
As someone who lived in her district for a time and who continued to follow her Congressional career, I think she stood out simply based on one thing: her willingness to stick her neck out and call attention to the irregularities of the 2004 Ohio vote. It has become a sign of strength to go against one’s party when it is unpopular to do so; Representative Jones went with her party when it was unpopular to do so. That is integrity.
She’ll be missed, and not solely by her constituents. My thoughts are with her family.
Comments
August 13, 2008 at 6:06 pm
(Uncategorized)
So, I was minding my own business, trying to read an article on National Review (shh, don’t tell!) when an advertisement slapped my face and forced me to watch it play. As it happens, it was created by Freedom’s Watch to encourage me to tell Congressman Udall to return to Washington to “start fixing Colorado’s energy crisis.” Ok, first of all, Udall isn’t my Representative. Nice try though. And, for the record, Udall voted against the motion to adjourn on August 1, joining 14 other Democrats. You can’t blame him for turning off the lights.
What really interested me was the idea the a group called Freedom’s Watch should be so concerned about offshore drilling (because we all know that’s what this is all about). So I went to their website. They claim to be pushing “mainstream Conservative values” in four key areas:
- The dangers of radical Islam and the emerging Iranian threat
- Advancing a conservative agenda and market-based solutions to pressing domestic problems
- Standing up to Big Labor’s radical agenda
- Preventing the degeneration of our society by stopping the legalization of controlled substances.
Ok, it’s tempting, but don’t laugh.
(*sigh*) Fine, go ahead, laugh, you can’t help it. Islamic militants and Big Labor are both on the same side (i.e., “radical”) of this group, according to their own words? And yet they are still “mainstream?”
Never mind that, though, because I’d like to really pick on “Advancing…market-based solutions to pressing domestic problems” because I assume that’s where off-shore drilling fits best. Now, even this group seems to feel the problem we really need to fix is our dependence on foreign energy rather than the fact prices are too high (read their
issues page.) So I fail to see why off-shore drilling (fixing the problem on the supply side) is
so much more “valid” than allowing renewable energy to gain traction while they have a price advantage or encouraging more energy efficient behaviors (fixing it on the demand side.) This is especially true if you consider that any silver bullet in the form of increased drilling now only postpones the pain of transitioning away from oil in the future.
I’m not at all convinced that mainstream conservatives really believe that more drilling is really the best solution in the long run. I do believe they see this issue as a way to hoodwink enough independents (and maybe even some blue-collar Democrats) by telling them what they want to hear (that gas prices will go down) and thereby gain back their majority, thus allowing them to return focus to those key areas we saw above.
If they’re successful, I guess the one consolation is that we’ll get to see them try to reconcile their market-based values with their opposition to free-market reformation of drug laws. That should be a blast.
Comments
July 9, 2008 at 8:21 pm
(Uncategorized)
As anticipated, the Senate passed FISA with telco immunity intact.
This is exceptionally frustrating for many reasons, most of which have already been aired throughout the blogosphere and old media. Sometimes you know you’re beat–despite the fact that the Senate is often considered the more liberal chamber of Congress and despite the fact that Democrats have a majority, the first attempt at removing immunity failed 32-66. With votes like that, the Democrats look beyond spineless.
A few interesting notes:
First, I see that McCain did not vote. (The only other Senator not voting was Ted Kennedy). One is left to wonder if he worried how his vote would affect his ability to gain support. Second, the conservative-leaning blogosphere appears to have been relatively quiet on this issue (except to express glee at divisions among Democrats over Obama’s stance on the bill). The bill, and telco immunity in particular, seems not to have as much (vocal) support among more or less regular people as the roll calls would indicate. This worries me as well (insofar as it can without much in the way of data to back it up).
The biggest thing, of course, is that certain telecommunications companies will go unpunished for doing something that was illegal. While I wish I had a more complete list of companies that did the right thing (I believe Qwest rejected the illegal requests) it’s pretty clear that Verizon and AT&T are both implicated and Google searches turn up suggestions that there were quite a few others. Among the more troubling aspects of this are indications that the NSA has worked with AT&T to monitor portions of the data backbone of the Internet, in which case they could conceivably see just about any communication you might place over the internet, regardless of who your ISP might be.
Regardless, there are still ways to punish AT&T, Verizon and others–simply refuse to purchase services from them.
Comments
June 19, 2008 at 12:54 am
(Uncategorized)
Every once in a while (actually, it’s quite frequently), someone comes along and says they’re going to run the government like a business. What a utopian idea!
Now, when one gets into the details, running the government of a capitalist society like our own doesn’t often lend itself to the business model. Profit and loss lose some of their meaning–after all, many of the functions of government don’t lend themselves easily to generating revenue and that’s certainly true when it comes to setting policy. Nonetheless, I think there may be some valuable insight to be gained from looking at certain policy conundrums from a business standpoint. In particular, this whole four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline thing has both major parties spewing nonsense. It’s time to reset and take a fresh look.
Even if government can’t be modeled with business solutions, perhaps societies can. One business practice I’d be interested in applying is root cause analysis. In my mind, this could be a good way to look at a number of problems. But let’s look at how I’d envision the results when applied to the oil/gasoline price problem.
First, do we even agree that oil prices are a problem? To this, I’d say “absolutely.” It’s clearly affecting Joe Schmo, especially when he lives in the heartland. In places like Kentucky, the effects of high gas prices are embellished because of the distances between towns and the relatively lower incomes of its inhabitants. A New York Times article provides a nice look at this. But the effects of gas prices on truckers (and thus to a significant degree to almost all of the goods we can purchase) are also often mentioned in the dialogue of the times, as is the effect on airlines. Less mentioned (though still touched on) is the effect gas prices have on all sorts of petroleum-based products–important when we have become very reliant on plastics, for example. So oil prices are a problem, and the problem is very relevant.
But what is really causing gas prices to be so high? Here is where things can get tricky. Let’s look at several scenarios. First, let’s take on the factor of rapidly rising demand. This doesn’t sound too unreasonable. Basic economic theory suggests that increased demand with static supply will lead to higher prices and we are led to believe that cars are becoming more in more mainstream in the large developing economies of India, China and Brazil. So demand is certainly a possible factor–let’s hang onto that thought.
Supply could also be a factor. Again, basic economics says that decreasing supply under static demand will create rising prices. And there has been media coverage on this issue as well. While oil companies still claim to have plenty of reserves available, they are increasing difficult to reach. By every indication, methods such as oil shale extraction will be viable once prices are high enough; this would, for example, open up reserves in places such as the Green River Basin (provided political restrictions are removed). The concept of limited supply is more frightening in the sense that if supply problems alone are driving the price increases we’re feeling, it would appear at first glance that oil supplies are dwindling even faster than some of the doomsday predictions. But the market also doesn’t react immediately. Increased prices will make supplies that weren’t previously viable into potentially profitable sources but it takes several years to get the machinery and infrastructure in place. In other words, supply problems could be caused either by diminishing supply or, simply, slow reaction to increased demand.
There is another reason for high oil prices that has been proposed by Democrats recently, which is that out- of-control oil speculation has driven prices up. Several Democrats have countered the President’s requests to cancel legislation banning offshore drilling with several proposals to limit speculative practices. Finally, a fourth cause of high gas prices is the weak dollar.
So, there are four quickly identifiable pressures on oil prices–what’s a policymaker to do? Well, let’s wait a second…have we really found the root causes for each pressure? Let’s look again. Demand is up. Why is demand up? Because large industrializing countries are adopting them, on top of increased demand from mature economies where oil-thirsty behaviors (large engines, large cars or long commutes) can be a symbol of affluence. Why is supply down? Well, the energy source in question is limited and we’ve used some portion of it up. There may be more, perhaps even more than what we’ve used over the course of history. But there is going to be less tomorrow than there was today. Why is speculation (and specifically manipulation) occurring? Because it can be done, and done profitably, largely because oil is price inelastic. We need a set amount of energy to live our lives the way we’re used to, and we don’t change our behavior quickly (much as Bush’s oil rigs won’t be set up off of coastal Florida tomorrow). As for the falling dollar, while it shouldn’t be ruled out as a cause, the root causes aren’t specific to energy and as such are outside of this discussion. Looking at things this way, I find that three of the four identified pressures seem to have very similar causes: we use a lot of energy. Solving the supply issues or solving the market manipulation problem doesn’t get to the heart of the problem.
Rather than pushing policy that seeks to solve higher-order causes, our politicians need to look at the demand problem and in my mind, that means going beyond fuel efficiency limits and cap-and-trade emissions programs. We need increased incubation funds for energy-efficient technologies, but even more than that, we need to look more closely at the very structure of our societies. When I go to the local “natural” food store and see California strawberries for $6.00 a quart when I can get a quart of strawberries for $5.00 at the local farmer’s market, there is a problem. When I feel I have to own a car to have suitable access to a job in a major metropolitan area, there is a problem. When we design a metro area like Phoenix, Arizona, with it’s sprawl (to say nothing of cooling requirements) we have a problem.
This problem will not be solved by oil at any price, nor will it be solved with nuclear energy or even solar and wind energy. It can only be solved by understanding and then reducing the energy we need to live our daily lives, and while our politicians probably shouldn’t have too much influence on that process, they also should avoid intervening too much by solving the wrong problem and in doing so obscuring the right problem.
Comments
June 11, 2008 at 12:25 am
(Social/Economic)
I’m not saying I’m glad that lots of perfectly good tomatoes are out there rotting (maybe more than anything we need a good contingency plan for dealing with the large amounts of fruit or vegetables that may or may not be dangerous in its fresh form. Tomato Paste futures, anyone?) or that people are sick because of bad produce. But I tend to not feel so bad for the growers for reasons I explained not so long ago.
Comments
May 31, 2008 at 2:25 am
(Culture)
It’s fashionable from time to time to compare the current age to Orwell’s 1984. This especially seems true during election years. But if you want proof that it’s 1984, what more do you need than that the Celtics and Lakers are in the NBA finals?
Comments
May 19, 2008 at 11:02 pm
(Uncategorized)
Quite a bit of ink has been wasted trying to explain why the Obama campaign seems to have so quickly written off West Virginia and Kentucky. Some Democrats (as indicated by commenters on this post) write this off to the campaign’s understanding that the area is populated with racist, bigoted rednecks who won’t vote for a Black or a woman. Perhaps this is true to a point. (Living in a place gives you a much more complex look at things; I have to think that the above-referenced commenters realize the picture is a little more complex, but then again they may not be used to places that don’t have, for example, gender-neutral restrooms or other indicators of inclusion that social liberals on the coast take for granted.) Nontheless, we all realize that these contests are won in the margins; losing to Clinton by a few less points in May helps build a stronger case in the fall, and while Kentucky appears to be part of the Red South, we recently booted a Republican incumbent from the Governor’s mansion and strong Democrats are lining up to face Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the fall. A good showing in Louisville, Lexington and Northern Kentucky could boost the Dems chances in the Senate race as well as Congressional races; but this can only happen if the party takes an urgent, sincere interest in the state now.
And to say things are quiet is an understatement. There are more yard signs for the Senate candidates; among Presidential hopefuls, one notices a strange predominance of Ron Paul signs. Hillary Clinton signs outnumber Barack Obama signs by 2 to 1. I keep hoping to see a second Obama sign but frankly I’d be happy with a third sign for Clinton. The campaign emails I receive have dwindled to the point that I’m not sure if the campaign is just resting up and saving resources for the fall battle or become convinced that any Kentuckians who have show interest must have gotten the candidate confused with Jimmy Buffet.
I don’t know. For once in my life I guess I want to vote for the winning candidate. If Obama loses Kentucky as part of a strategy of saving resources and strengthening talking points, I’m all for it. I’m impressed by the way he’s come back at McCain and Bush for their criticism of his plans to engage Iran. He has McCain talking in circles and best of all, he has the media taking notice. This will be critical once policy differences start to matter. So I can forgive a loss now, but I’d be very curious to hear how the party sees the state trending this year. Is it as up-for-grabs as I think? Or is it just from working around those notoriously librul country folk?
Comments
