Neither does anyone seem to be home at the Democratic Governor's Association.
The 2010 election cycle is underway everyone. Time get your websites up and running.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Nevermind Lee Fisher's Website, Where's Ted Strickland's?
So after all the hoopla about Lee Fisher's website from certain voices in the leftysphere, I'd like to ask this: has anyone visited Ted Strickland's website recently? Yeah. Try it out. You'll find a whole lot of nothing.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Here's Your Sign Folks
This is exactly the news that we need to signal the beginning of an economic recovery: rather than staying dependent on exports, Chinese manufacturers are beginning to push to sell to Chinese consumers rather than American.
For the last decade, the U.S. consumer has been the engine that drove not only the U.S. but the global economy. This recession has made plainly obvious that we can't do it alone any more. Once China increases domestic consumption and stops being so reliant on the U.S. market, then trade with China can become trade again, something it hasn't been for decades:
Liu Dequan says he has had to alter the ornamental lamps his firm had fashioned for the US market. He’s changed the plugs to fit Chinese sockets.
“Since the financial crisis happened I have had no foreign business at all,” Mr. Liu laments. “I decided that I have to work on the domestic market no matter how difficult it is.”
I Honestly Wasn't In the Tank for Fisher...
...but after yesterday's drama, I sure as hell am now. See the logo on the top right of this blog. I'll explain more about this later.
I'm Back
Well, as I said over in my farewell message over at BSB, I will be re-activiating this blog. For right now, I'm getting it set up for the Lefty Blogs feed, getting Analytics set up, and other housekeeping tasks. Probably will not go live til next Monday.
In the meantime, feel free to check out my archive of posts which goes back to August of 2005.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
I'm Not Here Anymore
I've moved on to be co-editor in chief of the Buckeye State Blog.
There's an RSS feed of BSB posts in the top left corner of this blog now.
There's an RSS feed of BSB posts in the top left corner of this blog now.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
interesting quote
This is a quote from a column written about the Gillian Gibbons fiasco in the Sudan, but for me it called to mind the Phil Burress "Christian Conservatives" in the U.S.:
Every faith has rigid doctrinaires who would sacrifice their very humanity for the fool's gold of theological purity. These people are so eager to live the literal law of their holy books that they miss the point of those holy books, shedding compassion, kindness and plain common sense along the way.
Worse, they are always literal about the wrong things, always literal about passages in holy writ that they feel empower them to punish, judge, ostracize and condemn. Never literal about the passages that require them to give, forgive, serve and stand humble.
Every faith has rigid doctrinaires who would sacrifice their very humanity for the fool's gold of theological purity. These people are so eager to live the literal law of their holy books that they miss the point of those holy books, shedding compassion, kindness and plain common sense along the way.
Worse, they are always literal about the wrong things, always literal about passages in holy writ that they feel empower them to punish, judge, ostracize and condemn. Never literal about the passages that require them to give, forgive, serve and stand humble.
Who's fearmongering now? McKinsey report says U.S. can halve CO2 emissions by 2030 with "minimal" cost
One of the favorite tactics of those on the right who are bought, sold, and paid for by the fossil-fuel industry is to label those who express concern over global warming as alarmists overreacting to the threat. Tom Blumer of Cincinnati's BizzyBlog has even developed a trademark phrase to describe global warming activists as "globalarmists."
But a new study done by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. should go a long way towards turning the tables on Tom and other fossil-fuel industry apologists. This report, funded in part by Pacific Gas & Electric, Detroit Edison, and Royal Dutch Shell, concludes that the United States could halve its CO2 output by 2030 at minimal cost.
That's because 40% of the steps needed to make it happen would actually save money. And, according to their report, 80% of this reduction could be achieved using only existing technologies. The 20% remainder is from technologies that are well on their way to commercialization, such as the use of cellulostic ethanol, and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
This contrasts sharply with the alarmists on the right who warn that we can't stop global warming without crippling our economy. For example, when Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Sen. John Warner of Virginia proposed a bill creating a cap-and-trade scheme for CO2 emissions in the U.S., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that it would cost 3.4 million Americans their jobs, as well as force consumers to pay as much as $6 trillion more in higher prices for oil, gas, and other goods. All this begs the question: Who's fear mongering now?
Read the BusinessWeek article detailing the McKinsey report by clicking here.
But a new study done by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. should go a long way towards turning the tables on Tom and other fossil-fuel industry apologists. This report, funded in part by Pacific Gas & Electric, Detroit Edison, and Royal Dutch Shell, concludes that the United States could halve its CO2 output by 2030 at minimal cost.
That's because 40% of the steps needed to make it happen would actually save money. And, according to their report, 80% of this reduction could be achieved using only existing technologies. The 20% remainder is from technologies that are well on their way to commercialization, such as the use of cellulostic ethanol, and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
This contrasts sharply with the alarmists on the right who warn that we can't stop global warming without crippling our economy. For example, when Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Sen. John Warner of Virginia proposed a bill creating a cap-and-trade scheme for CO2 emissions in the U.S., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that it would cost 3.4 million Americans their jobs, as well as force consumers to pay as much as $6 trillion more in higher prices for oil, gas, and other goods. All this begs the question: Who's fear mongering now?
Read the BusinessWeek article detailing the McKinsey report by clicking here.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Sen. George Voinovich says "No" to the jobs of tomorrow
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
