I'm posting this in an effort to "bring home" all the bits of wisdom I've spread out to other blogs - Nick D
U.S. Sen George Voinovich (R-Ohio) announced that he will oppose efforts in Congress to hold SUV's and light trucks to the same fuel mileage standards as cars. A bill which passed the Senate 65-27 but is now headed to a House-Senate conference committee would require a combined fleet fuel economy of 35 MPG by 2020. In requiring this, the bill promises to spur further investment in fuel-saving technology that could create thousands of new jobs right here in Ohio, jobs that won't be tied to the inevitable decline in the use of fossil fuels. Voinovich instead backs an alternative bill that would call for a 35 MPG standard for cars, and a 32 MPG standard for trucks & SUV's, by 2022, but includes a loophole allowing regulators to delay fuel economy mandates if they are found impossible to meet. Read the full story in this Pee Dee article.
Reducing our dependence on petroleum is not just a win-win, it is, by my calculations, a win-win-win-win.
Win #1 - Reduce CO2 emissions - Anyone notice how warm it's been into October? How dry it is down in the South? Yeahh....that global warming thing is not only not a hoax, its happening right now. This is a great first step towards reducing our carbon emissions
Win #2 - Prevent Terrorism - Let's see if we can grasp this one kiddies, we buy oil from Middle Eastern countries for dollars. Some of those dollars get spent for good stuff, but some get provided to terrorists. So the less dollars we send over there, the less ends up in the hands of al-Qaeda. The less oil we buy, the more it drives down the price of oil, which means that al-Qaeda gets less money no matter who is buying oil. If we really want to win the "war on terror," we must reduce our reliance on oil. Was that simple enough?
Win #3 - Reduce our trade deficit - Anyone been paying attention to all those stories talking about how cheap the dollar is these days?? Five years ago, it cost 90 cents to buy a euro. Today it costs $1.40. That's because we've been sending oodles of cash overseas to purchase increasingly expensive oil, (Five years ago, the price of oil was $20/barrel. Today its $80/barrel) and it turns out the rest of the world isn't buying more of our stuff to compensate. So, there are piles of greenbacks overseas, and that makes them easily available and therefore....less valuable. Less oil use = less greenbacks sent overseas = smaller trade deficit.
Win #4 - Creates the jobs of tomorrow - Hate to break it to the UAW, but hanging on tighter than hell to the jobs of the past is a slow-death strategy. Instead, how about an infusion of some young blood. How about having confidence that Ohioans will be manufacturing fuel cells, electric motors, lithium-ion batteries and other advanced technologies. Ohio has manufacturing know-how that few areas in the world can match. Why don't we provide incentives to invest in this emerging technology, by, for instance, requiring higher gas mileage!! Gosh I crack myself up.
Go tell Georgie to shape up and support the gas mileage bill without the loopholes.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Monday, October 08, 2007
Politics Matter
Car And Driver magazine is a publication targeted at red-blooded, meat-eating, gasoline-fueled American men. It’s a magazine for those (like me) who believe that there are two kinds of people: Those whose cars have a manual transmission (a.k.a stick-shift), and those who are wimps. If you’ve ever wondered whether its better to spend your $100,000 on an Aston Martin V-8 Vantage, an Audi R8, or a Porsche 911 Turbo, Car And Driver has an answer for you. This is a magazine for people interested in nothing more than driving a very, very fast car.
And yet, in one of those demonstrations of how politics affects each and every American, whether they choose to be active in the political process or not, the lead editorials from this month’s issue of C&D are both related to political issues. The lead editorial, by the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Csaba Csere, bemoans Virginia’s extremely unpopular “civil restitution fees.”
This plan, hatched by a Republican lawyer in the Republican-led House of Delegates, tacks on hefty fees to normal tickets in an attempt to turn the criminal justice system into a revenue generator for Virginia. In an example cited in the editorial, driving 20 or more MPH over the speed limit is now defined as wreckless driving. So not only will that 75 in a 55 get you the normal $200 ticket, but it also now gets you a $900 “civil restitution fee” on top of it. In one of the more controversial aspects of the plan, these “civil restitution fees” only apply to Virginia residents. Apparently, the lawyer who hatched this plan feared that the cost of tracking down out-of-state residents would eat into the profits to be earned from the fines.
Like other bald-face cash grabs, such as red-light cameras, this plan was supposed to provide revenue in lieu of increasing gas taxes. Because even in the face of runaway inflation of the cost of highway construction materials such as steel and concrete, Republicans have been reluctant to increase the nominal gas tax rate, even if the real (inflation-adjusted) gas tax rate would not change.
Someday, Republicans will learn that the people don’t like it when they attempt to turn the criminal-justice system into a revenue generator. Especially the readers of C&D, who view speeding tickets as “just a tax on getting there.” In Virginia, they might even learn this year, where this plan has the Republicans in danger of losing control of the House of Delegates.
Flipping to another editorial, this time by editor Patrick Bedard, you will read about how a “bankrupt” government is “selling our highways out from under us.” He is referring, of course, to Indiana’s leasing of the Indiana East-West Toll Road to a Spanish-Australian consortium for 75 years in exchange for $3.8 billion, and the flurry of proposed similar deals that have followed. Captain 36 percent, Ken Blackwell, proposed a similar deal for the Ohio Turnpike as part of his gubernatorial campaign last year.
My own opinion of this practice is that it is undemocratic for these governments to engage in long-term leases of public assets, because they are making policy decisions that cannot be undone for generations to come. And if the political leaders who receive this lump sum of cash spend it poorly (not an unlikely scenario, I'm afraid) then it's future users of the Toll Road 50, 60, 75 years down the line who will pay the price, because they will be paying a double tax that they won't be benefiting from.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that every law, and indeed the Constitution itself, should expire once every 20 years, which he calculated to be a “generation.” This, he argued, was the only way to prevent one generation from imposing its will on the next, which, in his opinion, was not actually democracy at all. Thus you can see my point that long-term leases of public assets are incompatible with democracy itself.
What I find most interesting about these editorials is that they are both criticizing policies promoted primarily by Republicans. I find this funny because I can’t think of a bastion of red-blooded conservative Republicanism more pure than the NASCAR fans and car guys who would read such a magazine. But at the end of the day, it illustrates that politics touches every aspect of our lives. And that’s why participation in the political process by each and every American is so vital.
And yet, in one of those demonstrations of how politics affects each and every American, whether they choose to be active in the political process or not, the lead editorials from this month’s issue of C&D are both related to political issues. The lead editorial, by the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Csaba Csere, bemoans Virginia’s extremely unpopular “civil restitution fees.”
This plan, hatched by a Republican lawyer in the Republican-led House of Delegates, tacks on hefty fees to normal tickets in an attempt to turn the criminal justice system into a revenue generator for Virginia. In an example cited in the editorial, driving 20 or more MPH over the speed limit is now defined as wreckless driving. So not only will that 75 in a 55 get you the normal $200 ticket, but it also now gets you a $900 “civil restitution fee” on top of it. In one of the more controversial aspects of the plan, these “civil restitution fees” only apply to Virginia residents. Apparently, the lawyer who hatched this plan feared that the cost of tracking down out-of-state residents would eat into the profits to be earned from the fines.
Like other bald-face cash grabs, such as red-light cameras, this plan was supposed to provide revenue in lieu of increasing gas taxes. Because even in the face of runaway inflation of the cost of highway construction materials such as steel and concrete, Republicans have been reluctant to increase the nominal gas tax rate, even if the real (inflation-adjusted) gas tax rate would not change.
Someday, Republicans will learn that the people don’t like it when they attempt to turn the criminal-justice system into a revenue generator. Especially the readers of C&D, who view speeding tickets as “just a tax on getting there.” In Virginia, they might even learn this year, where this plan has the Republicans in danger of losing control of the House of Delegates.
Flipping to another editorial, this time by editor Patrick Bedard, you will read about how a “bankrupt” government is “selling our highways out from under us.” He is referring, of course, to Indiana’s leasing of the Indiana East-West Toll Road to a Spanish-Australian consortium for 75 years in exchange for $3.8 billion, and the flurry of proposed similar deals that have followed. Captain 36 percent, Ken Blackwell, proposed a similar deal for the Ohio Turnpike as part of his gubernatorial campaign last year.
My own opinion of this practice is that it is undemocratic for these governments to engage in long-term leases of public assets, because they are making policy decisions that cannot be undone for generations to come. And if the political leaders who receive this lump sum of cash spend it poorly (not an unlikely scenario, I'm afraid) then it's future users of the Toll Road 50, 60, 75 years down the line who will pay the price, because they will be paying a double tax that they won't be benefiting from.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that every law, and indeed the Constitution itself, should expire once every 20 years, which he calculated to be a “generation.” This, he argued, was the only way to prevent one generation from imposing its will on the next, which, in his opinion, was not actually democracy at all. Thus you can see my point that long-term leases of public assets are incompatible with democracy itself.
What I find most interesting about these editorials is that they are both criticizing policies promoted primarily by Republicans. I find this funny because I can’t think of a bastion of red-blooded conservative Republicanism more pure than the NASCAR fans and car guys who would read such a magazine. But at the end of the day, it illustrates that politics touches every aspect of our lives. And that’s why participation in the political process by each and every American is so vital.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Dispatch Editorial page honcho says global warming is not such a big deal
Columbus Dispatch editorial page head-honcho Glenn Sheller shows his conservative colors in a column in the Sept 30th Dispatch. Paraphrasing, he says that global warming isn't really such a big deal, and that "alarmists" such as Al Gore should step aside and allow "reasonable people" to debate the "trade-offs" of global climate change.
This is not a new tactic by those on the right. As I stated in this post on my personal Blue Ohio Blog back in February, since the righties and their allies in the fossil fuel industry have failed in their attempt to convince the American public that global climate change is a myth, they have happened upon a new strategy of turning the entire issue into a giant cost/benefit analysis and concluding that its not worth fixing. That's what Sheller means by "trade-offs."
The problem with this strategy is twofold. One, we don't know what the costs and benefits will be, because every day scientists are discovering more and more effects of climate change. Two, it is extremely difficult to assign a "cost" or a "benefit" to some of the effects of global climate change. If you happened to pick up a copy of this months' National Geographic, then you know that the additional CO2 in our atmosphere is being sucked into the oceans, changing their pH, making it more acidic. Pretty soon it will be too acidic to support marine life. Guess what, kids, those things called fish we used to catch out of our waterways? Eh, their gone. What "cost" do you put on that when you do your cost/benefit analysis? National Geographic also interviews scientists (presumably not paid by the fossil fuel industry) who estimate that if left unchecked, global climate change could easily kill off 40% of the species that exist on planet Earth today. What "cost" do you assign to that? How about the human deaths caused this summer by a brain-eating amoeba that grows in warm fresh water lakes? (No, not making this up, see CNN story here) What happens if Lake Erie gets warm enough that the amoeba grows in the Lake? Sorry, Cleveland, you need a new water supply. How's that factor in to that good ol' cost-benefit analysis, there, Glenn?
What "reasonable people" would be doing, instead of performing cost/benefit analyses, is recognizing that since we're going to run out of fossil fuels anyway, and since acquiring these fuels involves either giving oodles of cash to Middle Eastern dictators (who then give it to terrorists like Osama bin Laden) or literally removing mountains from places like West Virginia to get at coal, that's time for us to move away from them. Every day, scientists are working to develop green energy. Perhaps the Dispatch editorial page should use its ink to encourage Ohio's government to invest in green energy in the upcoming energy bill, instead of suggesting we allow "reasonable people" to debate the "trade-offs" of something we don't know nearly enough about to even be discussing what to trade for what.
This is not a new tactic by those on the right. As I stated in this post on my personal Blue Ohio Blog back in February, since the righties and their allies in the fossil fuel industry have failed in their attempt to convince the American public that global climate change is a myth, they have happened upon a new strategy of turning the entire issue into a giant cost/benefit analysis and concluding that its not worth fixing. That's what Sheller means by "trade-offs."
The problem with this strategy is twofold. One, we don't know what the costs and benefits will be, because every day scientists are discovering more and more effects of climate change. Two, it is extremely difficult to assign a "cost" or a "benefit" to some of the effects of global climate change. If you happened to pick up a copy of this months' National Geographic, then you know that the additional CO2 in our atmosphere is being sucked into the oceans, changing their pH, making it more acidic. Pretty soon it will be too acidic to support marine life. Guess what, kids, those things called fish we used to catch out of our waterways? Eh, their gone. What "cost" do you put on that when you do your cost/benefit analysis? National Geographic also interviews scientists (presumably not paid by the fossil fuel industry) who estimate that if left unchecked, global climate change could easily kill off 40% of the species that exist on planet Earth today. What "cost" do you assign to that? How about the human deaths caused this summer by a brain-eating amoeba that grows in warm fresh water lakes? (No, not making this up, see CNN story here) What happens if Lake Erie gets warm enough that the amoeba grows in the Lake? Sorry, Cleveland, you need a new water supply. How's that factor in to that good ol' cost-benefit analysis, there, Glenn?
What "reasonable people" would be doing, instead of performing cost/benefit analyses, is recognizing that since we're going to run out of fossil fuels anyway, and since acquiring these fuels involves either giving oodles of cash to Middle Eastern dictators (who then give it to terrorists like Osama bin Laden) or literally removing mountains from places like West Virginia to get at coal, that's time for us to move away from them. Every day, scientists are working to develop green energy. Perhaps the Dispatch editorial page should use its ink to encourage Ohio's government to invest in green energy in the upcoming energy bill, instead of suggesting we allow "reasonable people" to debate the "trade-offs" of something we don't know nearly enough about to even be discussing what to trade for what.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Police Brutality at the University of Florida
While this young man may be an idiot, the police had absolutely no cause to use the Taser on him. Tasers are only supposed to be used when there is a threat of deadly force. This is police brutality at its worst, and the University of Florida should fire the officers in question.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Fact-checking Petraus
Cross posted from the Baltimore Sun's political blog "The Swamp"
National Security Network Fact Check: Petraeus QuotesPetraeus: Iraq-wide, as shown by the top line on this chart, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%.
The Pentagon and Administration’s definition of “Ethno sectarian violence” excludes many types of violence that would indicate that the security situation in Iraq is not improving. Shi’a on Shi’a violence in the South is not included. Sunni on Sunni violence in the central part of the country is not included. “According to one senior intelligence official in Washington. ‘If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian,’ the official said. ‘If it went through the front, it's criminal.’" [Washington Post, 9/6/07]
According to figures compiled by the Associated Press, Iraq is suffering approximately double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year. The average daily toll has risen from 33 in 2006, to 62 so far this year. Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings — largely the work of Shi’a death squads. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count. These figures are considered a minimum and only based on AP reporting. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. That said, the AP notes that UN figures for 2006 are higher than the AP’s. [AP, 8/25/07]According to numbers released by the Iraqi government, since July civilian casualties have risen 20% across Iraq. The numbers fell significantly in Baghdad. The figures, provided by Iraqi Interior Ministry officials on Saturday, mirrored the geographic pattern of the troop increase, which is focused on Baghdad. The national rise in mortality is partly a result of more than 500 deaths, in an August truck bomb attack on a Yazidi community in August north of the capital, outside the areas directly affected by the additional troops. [NY Times, 9/2/07]
Various numbers from the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior show no drop in violence. According to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior, 984 people were killed across Iraq in February, and 1,011 died in violence in August. No July numbers were released because the ministry said the numbers weren't clear. But an official in the ministry who spoke anonymously because he wasn't authorized to release numbers said those numbers were heavily manipulated. The official said 1,980 Iraqis had been killed in July and that violent deaths soared in August, to 2,890. [McClatchy, 9/10/07]
Petraeus: "Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006."
According to General Petraeus attacks are only down in one of the last three weeks, but at the same time we have hit an all time low? In the National Intelligence Estimate released three weeks ago said that overall attacks had fallen in 7 out of 9 weeks. “The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks.” [National Intelligence Estimate]
The DIA’s statistics show that attacks on civilians were at the same level in July that they were in, back in January. The defense intelligence chart makes the point, with figures from Petraeus' command in Baghdad, the Multinational Force-Iraq. Congressional auditors used the same numbers to conclude that Iraqis are as unsafe now as they were six months ago; the Bush administration and military officials also using those figures say that finding is flawed. [AP, 9/9/07]
Petraeus: We endeavor to ensure our analysis of that data is conducted with rigor and consistency, as our ability to achieve a nuanced understanding of the security environment is dependent on collecting and analyzing data in a consistent way over time.
There were significant revisions to the way the Pentagon’s reports measure sectarian violence between its March 2007 report and its June 2007 report. The original data for the five months before the surge began (September 2006 through January 2007) indicated approximately 5,500 sectarian killings. In the revised data in the June 2007 report, those numbers had been adjusted to roughly 7,400 killings – a 35% increase. These discrepancies have the impact of making the sectarian violence appear significantly worse during the fall and winter of 2006 before the President’s “surge” began. [DOD, 11/2006. 3/2007. 6/2007]
Petraeus claimed that the surge helped transform Anbar Province from one of the most dangerous areas to one of the safest.
The “Anbar Awakening” began long before the “surge” and occurred because local Sunni tribes did not agree with Al Qaeda. The Anbar Salvation Council, which was formed by tribal sheikhs to fight the more extreme elements, was established in September 2006 and was showing significant results by early March of 2007 when the “surge” was just beginning. [NY Times, 3/3/2007]
The Sunni tribes attribute the change to a political agreement not to increased forces. The sheik who forged the alliance with the Americans, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, traced the decision to fight al-Qaeda to Sept. 14, 2006, long before the new Bush strategy, but the president's plan dispatched another 4,000 U.S. troops to Anbar to exploit the situation. As security improved, the White House eagerly took credit. [Washington Post, 9/9/07]The “surge” has only added 4,000 troops to Anbar. The main focus was Baghdad. “Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops.” [White House, 1/10/07]
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Imitation really is the most sincere form of flattery
Much press coverage has been focused on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's surprising 2nd place showing in the Iowa GOP "straw poll." Most of the coverage has been focused on Gov. Huckabee's shoestring budget, and the fact that he received more votes than the number of tickets his campaign purchased, meaning that either Huckabee supports paid the $35 a person fee to get into the straw poll on their own, or that participants who received other campaign's tickets to get in the poll ended up choosing Gov. Huckabee.
However, there's been very little coverage (except from some bloggers) on just how Gov. Huckabee achieved this remarkable showing. So how did he do it?
In short, by becoming the Republican version of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
Last year, the Ohio GOP establishment insisted that Sherrod Brown's constant harping on trade issues, health care, and the disappearing middle class was "out of the mainstream" and showed just how liberal he was. Sherrod Brown took this so-called out of the mainstream message to every corner of our state, conceding nothing, and walked away with a 12-point trouncing of two-term Republican incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine.
Now Senator Brown is being looked at by the 2008 presidential candidates as a model for how to carry the Mother of All Swing States, Ohio, as stated in this Cleveland Plain Dealer article. In the spotlight of this attention, Sen. Brown has dismissed the DLC as a "special interest, corporate influence on the Democratic Party."
At least one Republican candidate is also looking to Sen. Brown for inspiration on how to win. Don't believe me? Here's some of Gov. Huckabee's comments from the campaign trail in Iowa:
"The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we’re not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who for 20 and 30 years have worked to make a company rich, and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else. And the worker not only loses his job, but he loses his pension. That’s criminal. It’s wrong."
"I am not interested in being the candidate of Wall Street but of Main Street. Wealthy CEOs get paid 500 times what the average worker does, but they are not necessarily 500 times smarter or harder working and that is wrong."
"If somebody in the presidency doesn’t begin to understand that we can’t have free trade if it’s not fair trade, we’re going to continually see people who have worked for 20 and 30 years for companies one day walk in and get the pink slip and told ‘I’m sorry but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here.’...I’d like to prove that this presidency is not going to be just up for sale. If that’s the case, let’s just put it on eBay and be done with it. I’d like to think it’s going to be more about our principles, not just our pockets."
"If you want to know how to fix it [Health Care], I've got a solution," Huckabee said at the Republican debate. "Either give every American the same kind of health care that Congress has or make Congress have the same kind of health care that every American has."
As the Rocky Mountain News notes in this article, Gov. Huckabee has taken to telling audiences that he is "not a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street." and the Republican party risks being kept out of power if the People think that they work for the interests of big corporations and not ordinary Americans. What a concept!!
The above comments look like they could have come directly from Sen. Brown's campaign last year. That they are playing so well in front of Republican primary voters is surprising, but maybe it just goes to show how out of touch the supply-siders and free-traders in the Washington think tanks are with the Republican base. In any case, Sen. Brown should be flattered that a Republican presidential candidate rose to a surprising 2nd place showing in the Iowa GOP straw poll by copying his campaign themes from last year. Imitation remains the most sincere form of flattery.
However, there's been very little coverage (except from some bloggers) on just how Gov. Huckabee achieved this remarkable showing. So how did he do it?
In short, by becoming the Republican version of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
Last year, the Ohio GOP establishment insisted that Sherrod Brown's constant harping on trade issues, health care, and the disappearing middle class was "out of the mainstream" and showed just how liberal he was. Sherrod Brown took this so-called out of the mainstream message to every corner of our state, conceding nothing, and walked away with a 12-point trouncing of two-term Republican incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine.
Now Senator Brown is being looked at by the 2008 presidential candidates as a model for how to carry the Mother of All Swing States, Ohio, as stated in this Cleveland Plain Dealer article. In the spotlight of this attention, Sen. Brown has dismissed the DLC as a "special interest, corporate influence on the Democratic Party."
At least one Republican candidate is also looking to Sen. Brown for inspiration on how to win. Don't believe me? Here's some of Gov. Huckabee's comments from the campaign trail in Iowa:
"The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we’re not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who for 20 and 30 years have worked to make a company rich, and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else. And the worker not only loses his job, but he loses his pension. That’s criminal. It’s wrong."
"I am not interested in being the candidate of Wall Street but of Main Street. Wealthy CEOs get paid 500 times what the average worker does, but they are not necessarily 500 times smarter or harder working and that is wrong."
"If somebody in the presidency doesn’t begin to understand that we can’t have free trade if it’s not fair trade, we’re going to continually see people who have worked for 20 and 30 years for companies one day walk in and get the pink slip and told ‘I’m sorry but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here.’...I’d like to prove that this presidency is not going to be just up for sale. If that’s the case, let’s just put it on eBay and be done with it. I’d like to think it’s going to be more about our principles, not just our pockets."
"If you want to know how to fix it [Health Care], I've got a solution," Huckabee said at the Republican debate. "Either give every American the same kind of health care that Congress has or make Congress have the same kind of health care that every American has."
As the Rocky Mountain News notes in this article, Gov. Huckabee has taken to telling audiences that he is "not a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street." and the Republican party risks being kept out of power if the People think that they work for the interests of big corporations and not ordinary Americans. What a concept!!
The above comments look like they could have come directly from Sen. Brown's campaign last year. That they are playing so well in front of Republican primary voters is surprising, but maybe it just goes to show how out of touch the supply-siders and free-traders in the Washington think tanks are with the Republican base. In any case, Sen. Brown should be flattered that a Republican presidential candidate rose to a surprising 2nd place showing in the Iowa GOP straw poll by copying his campaign themes from last year. Imitation remains the most sincere form of flattery.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Are you kidding me?
This quote absolutely floored me:
"There's a war going on against energy from fossil fuels. I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry."
-U.S. Rep Ralph Hall (R-Texas)
You can't understand it, Ralph? Quick! Get outside the beltway!! You don't need to go back to the Texas 4th, the district you represent, you just need to go as far as say, Richmond, VA. Once you get there, ask the people you meet what they think about the fact that the price of gas has DOUBLED since George W. Bush took office. Ask them how they feel about the fact that the oil and gas industry has raked in truly outrageous profits from the increased price of gas. Ask them how they feel about the fact that the oil and gas industry is not using their massive profits to expand the capacity of America's oil refinery's, or drill for new oil and gas reserves, but are simply handing the money directly to their shareholders by buying back stock. And then, ask them how they feel about that same oil and gas industry getting massive tax breaks from the Republican 109th Congress!!!! Then maybe you can understand the pure venom, Ralph.
Is there a war going on against fossil fuels? No, not really. We all know that we can't survive today without them. However, there is a war to build a future for America that doesn't involve fossil fuels, Ralph. Because fossil fuels emit greenhouse gas, and a buildup of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere is causing our planet to warm. Now, that won't be devastating to the planet, not really. But it will be devastating for humankind, and that's why we must win this war, Ralph. I invite you to join those of us fighting it.
"There's a war going on against energy from fossil fuels. I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry."
-U.S. Rep Ralph Hall (R-Texas)
You can't understand it, Ralph? Quick! Get outside the beltway!! You don't need to go back to the Texas 4th, the district you represent, you just need to go as far as say, Richmond, VA. Once you get there, ask the people you meet what they think about the fact that the price of gas has DOUBLED since George W. Bush took office. Ask them how they feel about the fact that the oil and gas industry has raked in truly outrageous profits from the increased price of gas. Ask them how they feel about the fact that the oil and gas industry is not using their massive profits to expand the capacity of America's oil refinery's, or drill for new oil and gas reserves, but are simply handing the money directly to their shareholders by buying back stock. And then, ask them how they feel about that same oil and gas industry getting massive tax breaks from the Republican 109th Congress!!!! Then maybe you can understand the pure venom, Ralph.
Is there a war going on against fossil fuels? No, not really. We all know that we can't survive today without them. However, there is a war to build a future for America that doesn't involve fossil fuels, Ralph. Because fossil fuels emit greenhouse gas, and a buildup of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere is causing our planet to warm. Now, that won't be devastating to the planet, not really. But it will be devastating for humankind, and that's why we must win this war, Ralph. I invite you to join those of us fighting it.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Two Proposals I Support
Democrats have no ideas? Huey. Here are two proposals by promient Democrats that I think everyone should get behind:
- The Healthy Americans Act, proposed by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
- U.S. Senator, and Presidental candidate, Chris Dodd (D-CT) has produced a very well thought out national service plan. I urge you to read it here:
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Happy Father's "Pay"? What about Wal-Mart?
Strolling down W. Adams St., in the shadow of the Sears Tower in downtown Chicago on a hot, sunny Monday June 18th, I happened to see a copy of the Chicago Sun-Times in a paper machine for sale, and saw its screaming headline: OPERATION FATHER'S PAY. A quick glance at the sub-title made it clear that Illinois law enforcement had chosen Father's Day as the day to make almost 150 arrests of fathers who were behind on their child support payments. These fathers collectively owe in excess of $1.5 million to their childern. (For the complete story, click here)
I have a few comments on this story. First of all, what good does it do to throw people in jail if they are in debt? It's kinda hard for them to earn money when they are in the pokey. And it only damages their careers so they have trouble getting that next job. While doubtless some of these men are scofflaws who simply refuse to pay knowing the money is going to their ex, I'd be willing to wager a substantial portion of my next paycheck that the majority of these men are relatively poor to begin with, and trying to get the sums of money they are talking about from them is like trying to get blood from a stone.
But here is the most galling thing of all. The whole conservative justification for child support is that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay the welfare benefits for these single parents trying to raise their family, that the fathers should be forced to pay. And yet when the world's largest corporation routinely pays its employees so little that they end up on welfare, costing taxpayers an estimated $1.5 billion per year, nothing is done.
So its okay to throw predominately poor dads in jail because their children are costing taxpayers money, but no action is taken against the management of the world's largest corporation when its employees end up also costing taxpayers money?
Wal-Mart is the worst deadbeat dad of all. Before throwing another father in jail, let's force Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and all other employers who do so to stop paying poverty wages.
I have a few comments on this story. First of all, what good does it do to throw people in jail if they are in debt? It's kinda hard for them to earn money when they are in the pokey. And it only damages their careers so they have trouble getting that next job. While doubtless some of these men are scofflaws who simply refuse to pay knowing the money is going to their ex, I'd be willing to wager a substantial portion of my next paycheck that the majority of these men are relatively poor to begin with, and trying to get the sums of money they are talking about from them is like trying to get blood from a stone.
But here is the most galling thing of all. The whole conservative justification for child support is that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay the welfare benefits for these single parents trying to raise their family, that the fathers should be forced to pay. And yet when the world's largest corporation routinely pays its employees so little that they end up on welfare, costing taxpayers an estimated $1.5 billion per year, nothing is done.
So its okay to throw predominately poor dads in jail because their children are costing taxpayers money, but no action is taken against the management of the world's largest corporation when its employees end up also costing taxpayers money?
Wal-Mart is the worst deadbeat dad of all. Before throwing another father in jail, let's force Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and all other employers who do so to stop paying poverty wages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
