ED vs LOGICAL FALLACIES: BASE RATE FALLACY
3 years ago
Monday, December 6, 2010
Moving
When I set this up a year ago, I didn't know how long it would last, and Blogger was easy. But I'm pretty unhappy with the whole platform so I'm moving. I thought I'd already done this post honestly. But so you know, you can get all your 42 Reasons goodness at www.42liberal.zubon.org now. Check it out. I've got a great new post up!
Friday, November 5, 2010
I Went Done Gone and Lost My (Blue) Dog Again...
It's three days after midterms! I could (and might still) spend a post (or two, or three) talking about all of the things everyone else is talking about since the elections. Mainly that's the Republican take over of the house, John Boehner crying, how Nancy Pelosi's suddenly a loser, how Obama doesn't get "it", etc. But not for now. I'm going to attempt to talk about something a little more niche, and a whole lot less talked about. The Democrats lost a lot of seats. It's true. But where did they lose them exactly, and how does that affect party unity and message in Washington? I suspect you'll find that most of the losses came from the Blue Dog Caucus and that it might have the effect of a more unified (if less powerful) Democratic Caucus.
The Blue Dog Caucus in the 111th Congress has 53 members. They're geographically diverse, ranging from West Coast to East and urban districts to rural ones. Just as examples you have members like Loretta Sanchez of the California 47th, Southern Los Angeles. It's a very urban district with a high population density and a very small area. In contrast there's Chris Carney of the Pennsylvania 10th who's largest city is Carbondale. It's Pennsylvania's third largest house district by area. So I think we can rule out that Blue Dogs suffered in this election because they all represent the same type of voter and that voter type was especially swayed by Republicans.
In looking at the data from Tuesday, of the 53 members of the Blue Dog Caucus, only 24 of them won re-election. This number includes one race the New York Times hasn't called yet but is leaning toward the incumbent and two that haven't been called but look to be losses. It also includes six members who retired resulting in the seat switching parties, and one member who himself switched parties only to lose in the primary. That seat is also in Republican hands for the 112th Congress. With only 24 members winning re-election, the Blue Dogs had a success rate of 45.28% for the 2010 Midterms. Meanwhile, of all Democrats in the 111th Congress (255 of them) 191 seats (including three still out leaning Dem.) stayed in the Party. That's a 74.90% success rate.
Obviously averages aren't everything. Blue Dogs are more likely than your average Democrat to come from districts that could be described as "purple" or indeed, given the landslide of the 2008 election, districts that are generally described as Republican. So you wouldn't expect the success rate of the Blue Dogs to match that of the Democratic Party as a whole. Still, I think the number speak for themselves. Democrats held on to 3/4 of all their house seats this cycle (really bad, in the grand scheme) but the Blue Dogs held less than half.
At a glance, a few things about who won and who didn't in the Blue Dog Caucus do stand out to me. The first is that, like every other Democrat in California, they did just fine. Plenty has been made of the virtual sweep the Democrats pulled off in California while everyone else was trending to the right. Every Blue Dog hailing from a California House District won, with the exception of Jim Costa in the California 20th. And that race was so close it hasn't actually been called yet. With a sufficiently motivated Democratic base, Blue Dogs win, even in this red election cycle. The other major thing I noticed was all three of the Blue Dogs' leaders lost. Stephanie Sandlin of the South Dakota At-Large District lost by 3%. She was the Blue Dogs' Co-Chair for Administration. The Co-Chair for Policy, Baron Hill of the Indiana 9th lost by 10%. And Charlie Melancon, the Co-Chair for Communications vacated his seat to run against Louisiana Senator David Vitter. He lost, and the party lost his Louisiana 3rd by more than 25%. Ouch. So not only is the Blue Dog Caucus of the 112th Congress much smaller, they'll need new people to step into leadership positions.
Let's look at some policy stuff then. It's fairly clear that for a Democrat (even a Blue Dog) to hold their own in a district that's purple or red they need waves of support from enthused Democratic voters. That enthusiasm was in short supply all around the country this year to be sure. But I suspect that it had an effect on the outcome in races like Rep. Bobby Bright's in the Alabama 2nd where he lost by 2% and 5,000 votes in a way that it didn't in a race like Rep. Earl Blumenauer's in the Oregon 3rd where he won by 45% and 120,000 votes. What I'm arguing is, if the Blue Dog's had spent more time sticking to the Democratic plan, working with the Obama Administration, and passing progressive legislation then Bobby Bright might have found the 5,001 votes he needed to win in the Alabama 2nd. Or Charlie Wilson might have found the 10,000 votes he needed to win in the Ohio 6th.
The people are dissatisfied with the Health Care Reform. That's just one piece of legislation, but let's run with it. The final legislation is deeply unpopular. Republicans ran against it during the election and even some Democrats did. Just ask Joe Manchin. On the other hand, polls have consistently shown the Public Option to be very popular. The Public Option didn't pass in the Senate, and only a very weak version passed in the house. In short, if the Democrats had had more votes then a bill containing a strong Public Option (which the general public supports) could have been possible. Where were these votes missing from? Not the Republican Party. You guessed it. The conservative Blue Dog Caucus is full of House members (and their friends on the Senate side) who opposed a strong Public Option. This is about division within the Democratic party as much as it is about the two parties not getting along and agreeing.
The same rings true for Financial Reform. The Blue Dogs specifically label themselves as the "fiscally conservative" wing of the Democratic party. These guys are, in many ways, socially liberal Republicans. They couldn't bring themselves to vote on things like ending Too Big to Failm reigning in Wall Street, or demanding that derivatives be traded on the open market like everything else. They're the Democratic friends of the Big Banks that means the Party has no muscle and no guts for doing the dirty work that needs to be done. Consequently, as they tracked ever to the right in an attempt to appear palatable to the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in their districts, they ensured that the Democrats they did have, would be so uninterested in backing them up that they were virtually guaranteed to lose close elections in a Republican leaning midterm year.
The Blue Dog Caucus in the 111th Congress has 53 members. They're geographically diverse, ranging from West Coast to East and urban districts to rural ones. Just as examples you have members like Loretta Sanchez of the California 47th, Southern Los Angeles. It's a very urban district with a high population density and a very small area. In contrast there's Chris Carney of the Pennsylvania 10th who's largest city is Carbondale. It's Pennsylvania's third largest house district by area. So I think we can rule out that Blue Dogs suffered in this election because they all represent the same type of voter and that voter type was especially swayed by Republicans.
In looking at the data from Tuesday, of the 53 members of the Blue Dog Caucus, only 24 of them won re-election. This number includes one race the New York Times hasn't called yet but is leaning toward the incumbent and two that haven't been called but look to be losses. It also includes six members who retired resulting in the seat switching parties, and one member who himself switched parties only to lose in the primary. That seat is also in Republican hands for the 112th Congress. With only 24 members winning re-election, the Blue Dogs had a success rate of 45.28% for the 2010 Midterms. Meanwhile, of all Democrats in the 111th Congress (255 of them) 191 seats (including three still out leaning Dem.) stayed in the Party. That's a 74.90% success rate.
Obviously averages aren't everything. Blue Dogs are more likely than your average Democrat to come from districts that could be described as "purple" or indeed, given the landslide of the 2008 election, districts that are generally described as Republican. So you wouldn't expect the success rate of the Blue Dogs to match that of the Democratic Party as a whole. Still, I think the number speak for themselves. Democrats held on to 3/4 of all their house seats this cycle (really bad, in the grand scheme) but the Blue Dogs held less than half.
Blue Dog Seats Held | Blue Dog Seats Lost |
Jason Altmire (PA-4) Joe Baca (CA-43) John Barrow (GA-12) Sanford Bishop (GA-2) Dan Boren (OK-2) Leonard Boswell (IA-3) Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) Ben Chandler (KY-6) NYT hasn’t called. Probable hold. Jim Cooper (TN-5) Henry Cuellar (TX-28) Joe Donnelly (IN-2) Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8) VERY narrow margin. Jane Harman (CA-36) Tim Holden (PA-17) Jim Matheson (UT-2) Mike McIntyre (NC-7) Mike Michaud (ME-2) Collin Peterson (MN-7) Mike Ross (AR-4) Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) Adam Schiff (CA-29) David Scott (GA-13) Heath Shuler (NC-11) Mike Thompson (CA-1) | Mike Arcuri (NY-24) Melissa Bean (IL-8) NYT hasn’t called. Probable loss. Marion Berry (AR-1) Retired, Dems lost seat. Allen Boyd (FL-2) Bobby Bright (AL-2) Christopher Carney (PA-10) Travis Childers (MS-1) Jim Costa (CA-20) NYT Hasn’t called. Probable loss. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) Lincoln Davis (TN-4) Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) Ran for Sen. Bayh’s seat. Lost to Dan Coats. Bill Foster (IL-14) Bart Gordon (TN-6) Retired. Dems lost seat. Parker Griffith (AL-5) Switched Parties 2009. Lost primary. Republicans hold seat. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Blue Dog Co-Chair, Administration Baron Hill (IN-9), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy Frank Kratovil (MD-1) Jim Marshall (GA-8) Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications; Ran for Sen. Vitter’s Seat. Lost. Seat goes to Republicans. Walt Minnick (ID-1) Dennis Moore (KS-3) Retired. Wife lost race to Republican. Patrick Murphy (PA-8) Glenn Nye (VA-2) Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL) John Salazar (CO-3) Zack Space (OH-18) John Tanner (TN-8) Retired. Dems lost seat. Large margin. Gene Taylor (MS-4) Charlie Wilson (OH-6) |
Total: 24 | Total: 29 |
At a glance, a few things about who won and who didn't in the Blue Dog Caucus do stand out to me. The first is that, like every other Democrat in California, they did just fine. Plenty has been made of the virtual sweep the Democrats pulled off in California while everyone else was trending to the right. Every Blue Dog hailing from a California House District won, with the exception of Jim Costa in the California 20th. And that race was so close it hasn't actually been called yet. With a sufficiently motivated Democratic base, Blue Dogs win, even in this red election cycle. The other major thing I noticed was all three of the Blue Dogs' leaders lost. Stephanie Sandlin of the South Dakota At-Large District lost by 3%. She was the Blue Dogs' Co-Chair for Administration. The Co-Chair for Policy, Baron Hill of the Indiana 9th lost by 10%. And Charlie Melancon, the Co-Chair for Communications vacated his seat to run against Louisiana Senator David Vitter. He lost, and the party lost his Louisiana 3rd by more than 25%. Ouch. So not only is the Blue Dog Caucus of the 112th Congress much smaller, they'll need new people to step into leadership positions.
Let's look at some policy stuff then. It's fairly clear that for a Democrat (even a Blue Dog) to hold their own in a district that's purple or red they need waves of support from enthused Democratic voters. That enthusiasm was in short supply all around the country this year to be sure. But I suspect that it had an effect on the outcome in races like Rep. Bobby Bright's in the Alabama 2nd where he lost by 2% and 5,000 votes in a way that it didn't in a race like Rep. Earl Blumenauer's in the Oregon 3rd where he won by 45% and 120,000 votes. What I'm arguing is, if the Blue Dog's had spent more time sticking to the Democratic plan, working with the Obama Administration, and passing progressive legislation then Bobby Bright might have found the 5,001 votes he needed to win in the Alabama 2nd. Or Charlie Wilson might have found the 10,000 votes he needed to win in the Ohio 6th.
The people are dissatisfied with the Health Care Reform. That's just one piece of legislation, but let's run with it. The final legislation is deeply unpopular. Republicans ran against it during the election and even some Democrats did. Just ask Joe Manchin. On the other hand, polls have consistently shown the Public Option to be very popular. The Public Option didn't pass in the Senate, and only a very weak version passed in the house. In short, if the Democrats had had more votes then a bill containing a strong Public Option (which the general public supports) could have been possible. Where were these votes missing from? Not the Republican Party. You guessed it. The conservative Blue Dog Caucus is full of House members (and their friends on the Senate side) who opposed a strong Public Option. This is about division within the Democratic party as much as it is about the two parties not getting along and agreeing.
The same rings true for Financial Reform. The Blue Dogs specifically label themselves as the "fiscally conservative" wing of the Democratic party. These guys are, in many ways, socially liberal Republicans. They couldn't bring themselves to vote on things like ending Too Big to Failm reigning in Wall Street, or demanding that derivatives be traded on the open market like everything else. They're the Democratic friends of the Big Banks that means the Party has no muscle and no guts for doing the dirty work that needs to be done. Consequently, as they tracked ever to the right in an attempt to appear palatable to the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in their districts, they ensured that the Democrats they did have, would be so uninterested in backing them up that they were virtually guaranteed to lose close elections in a Republican leaning midterm year.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Pre-Mortem
I've fallen down on my responsibilities recently. The elections are (coming) up and so I thought I'd take a few moments and add in my own thoughts. I'm going out on a limb and broadly going to suggest that things won't be as ugly for Democrats as all the writing around the blogosphere suggests it will. Check out this piece from Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight. That's a hypothetical, and yes, he did write it as a devil's advocate. Yes, there is another piece from a few days earlier, written in the same style, about how Republicans could pick up 70 or 80 seats in the House rather than the widely predicted 50 or 55. As Nate has talked about a lot recently, the actual margin (statistically speaking) is really wide this year. Polls suggest anything from a Republican gain in the mid 20s up to the low 80s as possible. But I'm a liberal blogger and so what am I going to do but come down on the side of Democrats? I'm inclined to believe that it won't be any worse than 55, and could very well be much better than that. But that's not statistical, that's my gut feeling. Let's examine the issues.
The Enthusiasm Gap
Much political hay has been made out of the so-called "Enthusiasm Gap" this cycle. Republicans and Tea Partiers are fired up and Democrats have just stopped caring. My evidence against this is anecdotal, yes. But I've spent some time actually making phone calls and knocking on doors this cycle for state and national Democrats and have seen plenty of Dems who are ready and eager to go to the polls and make clear that, even if we aren't 100% happy with the work the Obama White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has done, we don't think a Congress lead by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will be doing us any favors. Democrats view this contest as the lesser of two evils, yes. But the current Congress is clearly the lesser. The devil you know, as they say.
Voter Turnout
Voter Turnout is really closely linked to the Enthusiasm Gap. If you're not enthused, you don't turn out, right? But there are other issues to bring to bear here. Democrats still have a registration advantage over Republicans, thanks in large part to the Obama Campaign and it's post inauguration sibling Organizing for America. Democrats nationally have a better turnout machine than Republicans. I'm counting on that machine to counter and Enthusiasm Gap that might present its ugly head tomorrow.
The Democratic Record
It's become obvious over the last six months that most national and even state level Dems are attempting to run campaigns that, to put it kindly, don't talk about their accomplishments in Washington since the beginning of the 111th Congress. Nowhere has this been taken to such a visible extreme as Joe Manchin's ad in which he shoots the Cap and Trade Bill. That's an extreme example, and Manchin is clearly anti-Cap and Trade because West Virginia relies so heavily on it's coal industry. But there are Democrats all over the place talking about killing "ObamaCare", keeping the Bush Tax Cuts, and generally trying to run away from what Congress has done. Call me crazy, but I think the Democrats would be having a better year if they ran actively and forcefully on their record.
Let's get more specific. As we've covered, the Dems are losing the House. This is essentially a foregone conclusion and all the quibbling has been over how many seats we can expect the Republicans to pick up. My bet, 35. This is quite low and I could be totally off.
The Senate is a bit easier. I'd bet money that the Dems keep the Senate even if only by a slim margin. Here, I'm in complete agreement with Five Thirty Eight. The Republicans look to pick up 4 to 9 seats depending on what kind of night they have. Their chances at picking up the Senate went down the drain when Christine O'Donnell won the nomination in Delaware. If that didn't seal the deal then the increasing leads that Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray have over their opponents in California and Washington definitely will.
I'm going to take a moment to look at some individual races now. Some I'm pretty bullish on, others not so much. Starting in no particular order we have...Nevada.
Nevada
Before the primaries were done in Nevada, Harry Reid was sunk. He was down 20 points versus the generic Republican candidate. He's not charismatic, and not many people in Nevada like him all that much. Then the GOP nominated Sharron Angle. She thinks Flouride is a communist plot, Social Security should bepersonalprivatized, and refuses to answer questions from reporters. In fact, Mrs. Angle's craziness is the ONLY thing keeping Mr. Reid in the race. That said, Mr. Reid has about as finely tuned a turnout machine as has ever existed. Numbers from early voting suggest that registered Dems are turning out at a little under 3% more than registered Republicans. Couple that with Mrs. Angle's clearly racist, anti-Latino ads and I call this one for Mr. Reid by a hair.
California
Barbara Boxer has made some serious inroads into the numbers that Carly Fiorina has been putting up. She's showing a solid lead of 2 to 3 points now. Couple that with the momentum that Jerry Brown has made against Meg Whitman and I suggest that California will stay blue this year.
Washington
This could be the race to watch as far as the Senate this year. Republican Dino Rossi has been giving Democrat Patty Murray a run for her money all year and it could come down to some seriously late night (early morning) counting before this one is called. Murray has been pulling away just a little bit as of late so this one could really be indicative of how the Republicans do over all. If they have a wave night, count on seeing Senator Rossi in Washington. If the Democrats outperform their number, Murray will hold on.
Alaska
The three way race in Alaska has only gotten more interesting in the last week. Republican (and Tea Party fav) Joe Miller has appeared to be losing ground to incumbent and Write-In candidate Lisa Murkowski. What makes this that much more interesting is that the way Write-In votes are counted could end up handing the election to Democrat Scott McAdams if he can top Mr. Miller. Expect this one to run long (as in days and weeks after tomorrow). Alaska is one of the last states to close the polls and counting all those Write-Ins is technically challenging. I'm less bullish on this one. I'll give it to Mrs. Murkowski, though I'd love to see McAdams pull an upset.
Florida
Finally, we have the other three way this year between Marko Rubio, Charlie Crist, and Kendrick Meek. This is one where I have no faith in the Democratic nominee. Mr. Meek has denied that Democrats as high up as President Clinton have asked him to drop out and endorse Mr. Crist. Essentially, Mr. Rubio (who the Tea Party loves) is running away with this one. Having everyone who's against him splitting their vote between Governor Crist and Mr. Meek will give this seat away. Say hello to Senator Rubio.
I could write about a lot of other races, but these are by far the closest and most interesting. I have skipped West Virginia because I don't feel as qualified to talk about it, but in fact, it may be the first bellwether you get along with some of the races in Ohio.
The Enthusiasm Gap
Much political hay has been made out of the so-called "Enthusiasm Gap" this cycle. Republicans and Tea Partiers are fired up and Democrats have just stopped caring. My evidence against this is anecdotal, yes. But I've spent some time actually making phone calls and knocking on doors this cycle for state and national Democrats and have seen plenty of Dems who are ready and eager to go to the polls and make clear that, even if we aren't 100% happy with the work the Obama White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has done, we don't think a Congress lead by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will be doing us any favors. Democrats view this contest as the lesser of two evils, yes. But the current Congress is clearly the lesser. The devil you know, as they say.
Voter Turnout
Voter Turnout is really closely linked to the Enthusiasm Gap. If you're not enthused, you don't turn out, right? But there are other issues to bring to bear here. Democrats still have a registration advantage over Republicans, thanks in large part to the Obama Campaign and it's post inauguration sibling Organizing for America. Democrats nationally have a better turnout machine than Republicans. I'm counting on that machine to counter and Enthusiasm Gap that might present its ugly head tomorrow.
The Democratic Record
It's become obvious over the last six months that most national and even state level Dems are attempting to run campaigns that, to put it kindly, don't talk about their accomplishments in Washington since the beginning of the 111th Congress. Nowhere has this been taken to such a visible extreme as Joe Manchin's ad in which he shoots the Cap and Trade Bill. That's an extreme example, and Manchin is clearly anti-Cap and Trade because West Virginia relies so heavily on it's coal industry. But there are Democrats all over the place talking about killing "ObamaCare", keeping the Bush Tax Cuts, and generally trying to run away from what Congress has done. Call me crazy, but I think the Democrats would be having a better year if they ran actively and forcefully on their record.
Let's get more specific. As we've covered, the Dems are losing the House. This is essentially a foregone conclusion and all the quibbling has been over how many seats we can expect the Republicans to pick up. My bet, 35. This is quite low and I could be totally off.
The Senate is a bit easier. I'd bet money that the Dems keep the Senate even if only by a slim margin. Here, I'm in complete agreement with Five Thirty Eight. The Republicans look to pick up 4 to 9 seats depending on what kind of night they have. Their chances at picking up the Senate went down the drain when Christine O'Donnell won the nomination in Delaware. If that didn't seal the deal then the increasing leads that Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray have over their opponents in California and Washington definitely will.
I'm going to take a moment to look at some individual races now. Some I'm pretty bullish on, others not so much. Starting in no particular order we have...Nevada.
Nevada
Before the primaries were done in Nevada, Harry Reid was sunk. He was down 20 points versus the generic Republican candidate. He's not charismatic, and not many people in Nevada like him all that much. Then the GOP nominated Sharron Angle. She thinks Flouride is a communist plot, Social Security should be
California
Barbara Boxer has made some serious inroads into the numbers that Carly Fiorina has been putting up. She's showing a solid lead of 2 to 3 points now. Couple that with the momentum that Jerry Brown has made against Meg Whitman and I suggest that California will stay blue this year.
Washington
This could be the race to watch as far as the Senate this year. Republican Dino Rossi has been giving Democrat Patty Murray a run for her money all year and it could come down to some seriously late night (early morning) counting before this one is called. Murray has been pulling away just a little bit as of late so this one could really be indicative of how the Republicans do over all. If they have a wave night, count on seeing Senator Rossi in Washington. If the Democrats outperform their number, Murray will hold on.
Alaska
The three way race in Alaska has only gotten more interesting in the last week. Republican (and Tea Party fav) Joe Miller has appeared to be losing ground to incumbent and Write-In candidate Lisa Murkowski. What makes this that much more interesting is that the way Write-In votes are counted could end up handing the election to Democrat Scott McAdams if he can top Mr. Miller. Expect this one to run long (as in days and weeks after tomorrow). Alaska is one of the last states to close the polls and counting all those Write-Ins is technically challenging. I'm less bullish on this one. I'll give it to Mrs. Murkowski, though I'd love to see McAdams pull an upset.
Florida
Finally, we have the other three way this year between Marko Rubio, Charlie Crist, and Kendrick Meek. This is one where I have no faith in the Democratic nominee. Mr. Meek has denied that Democrats as high up as President Clinton have asked him to drop out and endorse Mr. Crist. Essentially, Mr. Rubio (who the Tea Party loves) is running away with this one. Having everyone who's against him splitting their vote between Governor Crist and Mr. Meek will give this seat away. Say hello to Senator Rubio.
I could write about a lot of other races, but these are by far the closest and most interesting. I have skipped West Virginia because I don't feel as qualified to talk about it, but in fact, it may be the first bellwether you get along with some of the races in Ohio.
Friday, October 15, 2010
If you Build it, They will Come
Please forgive me, both for the cliche title and the attempt to blog away my insomnia. I promise I do have an excellent (if long) post for you if you keep reading. You might want to grab a chair.
I want to take a moment to talk about something that has been both derided as a waste of public money and hyped as the sexiest word in American Politics. I'm talking of course about Infrastructure. My education is in a design field that is allied with fields like Architecture, Art, and Engineering. I'm going to try to both make the case for infrastructure as well as talk about what people mean when they use that word. When we talk about spending on infrastructure, what sorts of projects are we discussing? When the President, the other week, announced $50 billion for the jump starting of a National Infrastructure Bank (known from here on out as the NIB) what sorts of things did he have (or should have) in mind?
Let's look at things as they now stand first. America's infrastructure is old. How old? It varies to be sure. But suffice it to say that many important projects in this country were built in the 1950s with the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act under President Eisenhower. Yes. A Republican. Infrastructure investment shouldn't be an anathema to Republican and Republican leaning lawmakers. Much of the infrastructure is even older than that. Much of it is in dire need of servicing as well. States have been putting off maintenance on important bits of this mystical infrastructure for years, citing a lack of money. In reality it's usually more a lack of will, though the country's general blindness to the state of it's infrastructure is certainly not making money for that sort of work easy to come by.
And now I've said another magic word! Work! That's right. Pretty much anything that falls under the definition of infrastructure needs to be built and maintained. And what is one thing this country has in abundance right now? That's right. Unemployed people. Especially unemployed people in the construction industry. This link to a press release from the Associated General Contractors of America (who I suspect know a thing or two about building) cited the unemployment rate in the construction industry as 27.1%. I'm fairly certain the number has changed little in the six months since that report was released. This is point number one. We have lots of unemployed people that could be put back to work through public and private investment in infrastructure right now. The housing market is flooded with houses that no one is buying and it's going to be a long time before all of these unemployed construction workers are putting up suburbs again. I'd wager it'll be never for the suburbs, but that that's a different post. This brings me to point number two. Investment.
Check out this Op-Ed Paul Krugman wrote for the New York Times earlier this month. It does deal with a specific project (the Arc Tunnel under the Hudson from New Jersey to Manhattan) but he hits on points that are relevant to all sorts of infrastructure spending right now. Specifically, I want to highlight this:
So now that we've talked about why infrastructure spending (and by extension the NIB) is a good thing let's take a minute to look at what kind of projects we're talking about. In my view, infrastructure can be part of three broad groups (though many projects overlap, and a few will defy definition). In general you're looking at projects that deal with Building and Space, Transportation, or Energy and Communications. All of these areas are sadly not up to snuff currently in America. In addition I would describe each project regardless of which group it's in as also being either Monumental or Diffuse. Let's take a look at each category and then some real life projects that would be part of that group.
Building and Space
These projects are, as you might imagine, either buildings, public open spaces, or a combination of the two. This is often the area where it's easiest to convince private money to take part or fund something entirely. Sure, plenty of buildings are nondescript, but some would also be classified as Monumental. When I say Monumental, I mean that the work exists in a specific place, is well constructed and designed, and either is or has the potential to be a monument. We're talking tourists here. For constructed works I'm thinking, the Space Needle, the Flat Iron Building, Sears Tower and the like as well as Central Park, The Presidio, and other famous open spaces. Under way already? Try the construction under way for both buildings and open space in Lower Manhattan at Ground Zero. That link is worth it just for the photos and architectural renderings by the way. That's just a taste.
Transportation
Transportation projects are fairly obviously about moving people or goods from place to place. In that sense, many of them are going to be Diffuse as opposed to Monumental, but not all. These projects could range from the already discussed Arc Tunnel from New Jersey to New York, to construction and additions to subways, busses, and light rail like the Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan or the planned Orange Line addition to Portland's MAX Light Rail. These are all Diffuse or otherwise unviewable (meaning under the Hudson) by the public. In this section though you can also include projects like the new bridge near Hoover Dam that Rachel Maddow covered it last night. I'd call that Monumental. Wouldn't you agree?
This section would be remiss to leave out the continuing discussion about High Speed Rail (HSR) that has started in this country. This article at Infrastructurist (a fabulous blog) makes it clear why this is a liberal issue. Republicans view all this infrastructure spending as borrowing that the government can't sustain. There's also this post which highlights all the HSR lines that are receiving federal funding as of January. That map is pretty spectacular to me. And you can see where building even further in the future would go. An HSR backbone down the Pacific Coast from Vancouver, BC to Los Angeles? Who wouldn't want to make that trip in a matter of hours? Also, a connection through the heart of the country making Coast to Coast HSR travel possible isn't out of the long term question. They did it in the 1800s, why not now? I think we could find another Golden Spike.
Energy and Communications
Finally we have Energy and Communications which are, almost by definition, Diffuse. They're networks of transmission lines, computers, and the like. While they may not be as flashy as Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere, they're very important. In this section we not only have the opportunity to update our aging electrical and communications grids, we have the opportunity to build them afresh with technologies in mind like the Internet, mobile web surfing, and green energy production. If you think the electrical grid is fine the way it is, check out this piece from Joel Achenbach at National Geographic. It's fabulous. Not only do we need to update the transmission wires themselves though, we also have an opportunity to update how we get the electrons that run though those wires. That's where projects which the likes of Google have been supporting come in. In specific we have suggestions for an East Coast Wind Backbone, placing very large wind turbines off the coast and out of sight, as well as Geothermal in West Virginia Coal Country. Now if that can't break West Virginia's (and indeed the whole country's) dirty habit, I don't know what will.
Almost as an aside, I think there is room here too for collaboration on something with a little less function like Mount Rushmore between the future NIB and the National Endowment for the Arts. That's right, I said the NEA.
So what's the big picture? Most of the projects I've linked to have price tags running into the billions. But investment now, when we have every resource and financing trick on our side, can make the cost a bit less. Construction materials haven't been as cheap in decades. In closing, we, as America, have a choice. We can stand up and fix what is very rapidly breaking in this country and invest in the future. Or we can stand aside and let other countries (chief among them China) do what we are known for doing for over a century. If we do not choose to step up now, we can later. But it's going to be harder and come at a higher cost. If we make the investment now, we set the stage for another century of American greatness as well as begin to solve our problems right here, right now. Ranging from current unemployment and economic malaise to the desperate need to transition to energy sources other than oil and coal, the opportunity is now. I'll leave you with this scary chart from the Washington Post to think about.
I want to take a moment to talk about something that has been both derided as a waste of public money and hyped as the sexiest word in American Politics. I'm talking of course about Infrastructure. My education is in a design field that is allied with fields like Architecture, Art, and Engineering. I'm going to try to both make the case for infrastructure as well as talk about what people mean when they use that word. When we talk about spending on infrastructure, what sorts of projects are we discussing? When the President, the other week, announced $50 billion for the jump starting of a National Infrastructure Bank (known from here on out as the NIB) what sorts of things did he have (or should have) in mind?
Let's look at things as they now stand first. America's infrastructure is old. How old? It varies to be sure. But suffice it to say that many important projects in this country were built in the 1950s with the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act under President Eisenhower. Yes. A Republican. Infrastructure investment shouldn't be an anathema to Republican and Republican leaning lawmakers. Much of the infrastructure is even older than that. Much of it is in dire need of servicing as well. States have been putting off maintenance on important bits of this mystical infrastructure for years, citing a lack of money. In reality it's usually more a lack of will, though the country's general blindness to the state of it's infrastructure is certainly not making money for that sort of work easy to come by.
And now I've said another magic word! Work! That's right. Pretty much anything that falls under the definition of infrastructure needs to be built and maintained. And what is one thing this country has in abundance right now? That's right. Unemployed people. Especially unemployed people in the construction industry. This link to a press release from the Associated General Contractors of America (who I suspect know a thing or two about building) cited the unemployment rate in the construction industry as 27.1%. I'm fairly certain the number has changed little in the six months since that report was released. This is point number one. We have lots of unemployed people that could be put back to work through public and private investment in infrastructure right now. The housing market is flooded with houses that no one is buying and it's going to be a long time before all of these unemployed construction workers are putting up suburbs again. I'd wager it'll be never for the suburbs, but that that's a different post. This brings me to point number two. Investment.
Check out this Op-Ed Paul Krugman wrote for the New York Times earlier this month. It does deal with a specific project (the Arc Tunnel under the Hudson from New Jersey to Manhattan) but he hits on points that are relevant to all sorts of infrastructure spending right now. Specifically, I want to highlight this:
the price is right: with interest rates on federal debt at near-record lows, there has never been a better time to borrow for long-term investment.That's the main point of his Op-Ed besides the unemployed construction workers which we've now covered as well. Borrowing money when the National Debt is approaching $14 Trillion may not look appealing. But if we're borrowing for tangible things that are going to make our country more productive in the long run it's worth it. If we can increase GDP we both get out of this recession and make the job of paying down the National Debt that much easier. And infrastructure of almost all types will increase GDP beyond just the people working and getting paid to build it. That tunnel that Governor Christie has killed would ensure the smooth flow of traffic from New Jersey to Manhattan, one of the largest financial and business centers in the world. And just check out what's doing the job right now. One tunnel, two tracks, built almost a hundred years ago. If that's not word for word a description of the state of our infrastructure as it stands now, I don't know what is.
So now that we've talked about why infrastructure spending (and by extension the NIB) is a good thing let's take a minute to look at what kind of projects we're talking about. In my view, infrastructure can be part of three broad groups (though many projects overlap, and a few will defy definition). In general you're looking at projects that deal with Building and Space, Transportation, or Energy and Communications. All of these areas are sadly not up to snuff currently in America. In addition I would describe each project regardless of which group it's in as also being either Monumental or Diffuse. Let's take a look at each category and then some real life projects that would be part of that group.
Building and Space
These projects are, as you might imagine, either buildings, public open spaces, or a combination of the two. This is often the area where it's easiest to convince private money to take part or fund something entirely. Sure, plenty of buildings are nondescript, but some would also be classified as Monumental. When I say Monumental, I mean that the work exists in a specific place, is well constructed and designed, and either is or has the potential to be a monument. We're talking tourists here. For constructed works I'm thinking, the Space Needle, the Flat Iron Building, Sears Tower and the like as well as Central Park, The Presidio, and other famous open spaces. Under way already? Try the construction under way for both buildings and open space in Lower Manhattan at Ground Zero. That link is worth it just for the photos and architectural renderings by the way. That's just a taste.
Transportation
Transportation projects are fairly obviously about moving people or goods from place to place. In that sense, many of them are going to be Diffuse as opposed to Monumental, but not all. These projects could range from the already discussed Arc Tunnel from New Jersey to New York, to construction and additions to subways, busses, and light rail like the Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan or the planned Orange Line addition to Portland's MAX Light Rail. These are all Diffuse or otherwise unviewable (meaning under the Hudson) by the public. In this section though you can also include projects like the new bridge near Hoover Dam that Rachel Maddow covered it last night. I'd call that Monumental. Wouldn't you agree?
This section would be remiss to leave out the continuing discussion about High Speed Rail (HSR) that has started in this country. This article at Infrastructurist (a fabulous blog) makes it clear why this is a liberal issue. Republicans view all this infrastructure spending as borrowing that the government can't sustain. There's also this post which highlights all the HSR lines that are receiving federal funding as of January. That map is pretty spectacular to me. And you can see where building even further in the future would go. An HSR backbone down the Pacific Coast from Vancouver, BC to Los Angeles? Who wouldn't want to make that trip in a matter of hours? Also, a connection through the heart of the country making Coast to Coast HSR travel possible isn't out of the long term question. They did it in the 1800s, why not now? I think we could find another Golden Spike.
Energy and Communications
Finally we have Energy and Communications which are, almost by definition, Diffuse. They're networks of transmission lines, computers, and the like. While they may not be as flashy as Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere, they're very important. In this section we not only have the opportunity to update our aging electrical and communications grids, we have the opportunity to build them afresh with technologies in mind like the Internet, mobile web surfing, and green energy production. If you think the electrical grid is fine the way it is, check out this piece from Joel Achenbach at National Geographic. It's fabulous. Not only do we need to update the transmission wires themselves though, we also have an opportunity to update how we get the electrons that run though those wires. That's where projects which the likes of Google have been supporting come in. In specific we have suggestions for an East Coast Wind Backbone, placing very large wind turbines off the coast and out of sight, as well as Geothermal in West Virginia Coal Country. Now if that can't break West Virginia's (and indeed the whole country's) dirty habit, I don't know what will.
Almost as an aside, I think there is room here too for collaboration on something with a little less function like Mount Rushmore between the future NIB and the National Endowment for the Arts. That's right, I said the NEA.
So what's the big picture? Most of the projects I've linked to have price tags running into the billions. But investment now, when we have every resource and financing trick on our side, can make the cost a bit less. Construction materials haven't been as cheap in decades. In closing, we, as America, have a choice. We can stand up and fix what is very rapidly breaking in this country and invest in the future. Or we can stand aside and let other countries (chief among them China) do what we are known for doing for over a century. If we do not choose to step up now, we can later. But it's going to be harder and come at a higher cost. If we make the investment now, we set the stage for another century of American greatness as well as begin to solve our problems right here, right now. Ranging from current unemployment and economic malaise to the desperate need to transition to energy sources other than oil and coal, the opportunity is now. I'll leave you with this scary chart from the Washington Post to think about.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Age in the Age of the Tea Party
We all have opinions and ideas about the Tea Party by now. Some of us think we know what they stand for. We've seen who they nominate for elections of all stripes and we've seen how they run those elections. So, my question at this point is this.
Does the Tea Party care what happens to young people long term?
I think they don't. I don't believe that the Tea Party as an entity cares one bit about what the country will look like for those of us in our 20s and 30s when we're in our 50s and 60s. You want proof, right? Okay. Let's look at the facts.
The Huffington Post has an article up here that suggests that the Tea Party is disproportionately elderly. The relevant section says this.
Then there's Sharron Angle. Check out how she feels about Healthcare Reform. Just the other week on September 23rd it banned denying children coverage because of pre-existing conditions. This bill is good for young people. It's good for young people because the jobs that we increasingly hold, hourly jobs with no benefits, allow us to stay on our parents healthcare until the age of 26. That also went into effect on the 23rd. And it creates a system where healthcare may just become affordable one day. Most older people have healthcare though their work. We aren't like that. Just check it out here. She says there is "nothing good in this law." Also, for nerds out there like me, they set that ad to the theme music for Battlestar Galactica. Win.
Those are just two of a litany of examples, but I think my point is proven when I say that the Tea Party has no interest in protecting younger people in America. Vote at your own risk.
Does the Tea Party care what happens to young people long term?
I think they don't. I don't believe that the Tea Party as an entity cares one bit about what the country will look like for those of us in our 20s and 30s when we're in our 50s and 60s. You want proof, right? Okay. Let's look at the facts.
The Huffington Post has an article up here that suggests that the Tea Party is disproportionately elderly. The relevant section says this.
the demographics of the movement seemingly align with those who traditionally vote for the conservative candidate as well. Fifty-six percent of Tea Party respondents are male; 22 percent are over the age of 65 (compared with just 14 percent who are between the ages of 18 and 34)Compare that to 12% (as of 2004) and rising for the whole country. There's no doubt that the Tea Party is more elderly than the country on average. The Huffington Post article also notes that 14% of the Tea Party is 18-34. Compare that to roughly the same number for all Americans who are in that same age bracket. So that's the Tea Party. But what about their candidates and positions. Do they espouse positions that benefit older Americans at the expense of those of us who've lived less? Check out what Rand Paul, Tea Party candidate for Senate in Kentucky has to say. That's from the conservative Washington Post. Rand Paul wants to raise the retirement age for "younger workers" (he's not specific on who that is) in order to pay for things like an extension of the Bush tax cuts on those making $250,000 or more per year. And we all know that those of us in the 18-34 bracket are much less likely to be in that group. That's how the corporate ladder works. You hit the jackpot once you've been on the job for a long time and proved your worth. And it probably should work that way. But, the point here is that we're not getting bonuses now for a raised retirement age. We're getting screwed in order to pay for bonuses for old corporate VPs like the guys at Goldman Sachs. To be fair, that WaPo article suggests that the Democratic nominee in Kentucky also wants to extend all the tax cuts. Good job there Mr. Conway.
Then there's Sharron Angle. Check out how she feels about Healthcare Reform. Just the other week on September 23rd it banned denying children coverage because of pre-existing conditions. This bill is good for young people. It's good for young people because the jobs that we increasingly hold, hourly jobs with no benefits, allow us to stay on our parents healthcare until the age of 26. That also went into effect on the 23rd. And it creates a system where healthcare may just become affordable one day. Most older people have healthcare though their work. We aren't like that. Just check it out here. She says there is "nothing good in this law." Also, for nerds out there like me, they set that ad to the theme music for Battlestar Galactica. Win.
Those are just two of a litany of examples, but I think my point is proven when I say that the Tea Party has no interest in protecting younger people in America. Vote at your own risk.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Republicans have a Tea Problem
This isn't new news. But it is important news. It's been ramping up for quite a while now as we move through the Primary season. It started with Sharron Angle. It continued with Joe Miller's defeat of Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. And now, we're looking at Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell. Those are the highlights, but you can bet that there are others out there who are a little less wackadoodle but no less unelectable. The Tea Party may yet play Ralph Nader to the Republican Party's Al Gore. Weird analogy, I know. To be sure, as a liberal commentator one of the things I'm going to do is try to be optimistic about Democratic chances in ANY upcoming election. Check out Nate Silver's Five Thirty Eight for the statistics. He still gives the Republicans a 2 to 1 shot at winning the House. Get ready for Speaker Boehner, but cross your fingers you won't ever see it.
The Senate looked much better last week. But, in a rare bright spot, in the last week, Democratic chances of holding at least 51 seats there have gone up. Again, Nate hits the nail on the head when checking out the statistics in this article about the primaries in Deleware the other evening. But in short, we can thank Christine O'Donnell. For those of you who haven't gotten the memo about her yet, here's the short version. She just defeated nine time Congressman Mike Castle for the Republican nomination in Deleware. She now faces Chris Coons. Coons is a strong pick. There are only three counties in Delaware (I know, right?) and as a leader in one of them he has made tough choices to balance their budget and pay back their debt. The have a AAA financial rating. He's honest and upstanding and really about as squeeky clean as you can ask a candidate to be. That said, he had been written off as having little chance while everyone assumed he'd be challenging Mike Castle. But he's not. His challenger is Christine O'Donnell. She has run for several times before, with the most recent instance in 2008 when she tried to upset VP Joe Biden. Even while spending almost all of his energy helping the President with that race, Biden defeated Mrs. O'Donnell soundly. Her 2008 Campaign manager ran robocalls against her candidacy before the primary on tuesday, and though they did not work, to me that says something about how badly the Republican Party doesn't want to have to deal with her. Among other things, this Campaign manager has accused Mrs. O'Donnell of using campaign money to pay personal expenses including rent. She has touted herself as a college graduate for a long time, but only recently received her degree after having finally paid her school what she owed them. And this is one of the people the Tea Party wants to send to the Senate to fix our financial troubles?
Mrs. O'Donnell has spent most of her pre-campaign days as the founder and organizer of SALT, or Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth. A creepy name for an organization if there ever was one, it gives you no idea what the organization's main goal is. Video exists of Mrs. O'Donnell explaining this so it's not just me making things up.
Yes, that was the theme song from Joan of Arcadia, and yes, aside from the 90s hair we all had, that is Christine O'Donnell really telling you you can't masturbate because of the bible. Really. And now she wants to be the senator from Delaware.
In short, many of these candidates including Mrs. O'Donnell and Mrs. Angle may prove to be short lived victories. Yes, the Tea Party got them nominated. But can they actually put them into Congress, or will they do poorly in the general election because of the far right wing values they espouse? I imagine the latter is the answer and Chris Coons and Harry Reid are all to glad for that to be the case.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Don't Remember
This might get kinda long. I had something I wanted to say and now I have more after being out all day.
I spent all day at work today. I guess I haven't gone into much detail about myself on this thing yet so here it is. I work at an amusement park for an unamusing amount of money per hour. I've just graduated and moved to a liberal city on the west coast. I'm about as far from ground zero right now as you can get and still be in the Lower 48.
I regularly see people at work that I assume are Muslim. Mostly women wearing the hijab (headscarves). Sometimes a bit more covered up than that. Nothing too out of the ordinary. It's not often that I see as many presumed Muslims as I did at work today. I have no problem with this. In fact, I saw women wearing the full burqa/niqab combo along with the hijab for the first time today. Still no problem. One of the (many) points of America is that people are allowed to practice all their freedoms here including speech, religion, and right to assembly. It's fabulous really.
I heard the most disgusting things coming out of the mouths of some of my fellow Americans today. Mostly out of my fellow white Americans. I've never been so ashamed of people of my race in general. Some of the things I heard shouldn't be typed or repeated. But of some of the milder there were many scoffs of "foreigners" and a lot of talk about how we could "let them into the park on 9/11". Because clearly, since 19 men none of these people knew or agreed with doing horrible things on the other side of the continent nine years ago is a good reason to bar an entire class of people from freely going about their business.
Now that I've got that off my chest, let me talk about what I wanted to touch on originally. Segue!
Many of the kids I was helping amuse today weren't alive in 2001. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing. I was in school. Some business class that didn't do me any good. At the time I didn't even know what the World Trade Center looked like. Sheltered southern girl. I suspect that this is very similar to people talking about how they remember what they were doing when they found out that the Challenger blew up, or Kennedy was assassinated, or Pearl Harbor was attacked. The world has changed so much in the last nine years. Much of it for the worse. I and grew up in those nine years. I came of age, started driving, voting, and drinking in those nine years. (I just got really close to telling you how old I am.) In essence, who I am as an adult has been changed by the events on 9/11/2001. I would not be the same sort of political thinker if I had come of age under an inept and awkward Bush Administration who was not armed with the political power gifted it by the events of that day. I would not be a liberal in all probability. And there are people who have never known anything else!
I know this isn't groundbreaking. I imagine the same can be said by older people than about me and the Vietnam War, the Nixon Administration, or (again) the Kennedy Assassination. But knowing how our country and our world have changed since then, I cry for the children of the post-9/11 era. Don't get me wrong, I know the world wasn't all sunshine and daisies before then. But these children are growing up in a world where the First Amendment isn't a given. You're only allowed free speech and free exercise of your religious liberties if you don't look like you might be a terrorist. They have a world where anyone who says the wrong things is looked at suspiciously by their government. Where the economic stability of the now as well as their own futures are not too high a price to pay for two ill-advised wars. And lets look at these wars for a moment.
First is the joint invasion of Afghanistan by the US, UK, and the "coalition of the willing" shortly following 9/11 in 2001. We're still there. We've been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for nine years now. That's longer than any other war America has ever fought aside from Vietnam. And we're on the way to passing that one. Believe me. Second is the even more ill-advised invasion of Iraq originally to be termed Operation Iraqi Liberation until some genius at the Pentagon realized that spelled OIL. Known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, we've been fighting there since 2003. "Combat Operations" are over now. Twice. Once for each President, natch, and we only have 50,000 more fighting men and women there.
But you all know this. In short, these kids don't remember. They have never experienced a world without these problems. And unless we get our house in order and start framing our policy around something other than a regrettable tragedy of nearly ten years they won't ever know anything else.
I spent all day at work today. I guess I haven't gone into much detail about myself on this thing yet so here it is. I work at an amusement park for an unamusing amount of money per hour. I've just graduated and moved to a liberal city on the west coast. I'm about as far from ground zero right now as you can get and still be in the Lower 48.
I regularly see people at work that I assume are Muslim. Mostly women wearing the hijab (headscarves). Sometimes a bit more covered up than that. Nothing too out of the ordinary. It's not often that I see as many presumed Muslims as I did at work today. I have no problem with this. In fact, I saw women wearing the full burqa/niqab combo along with the hijab for the first time today. Still no problem. One of the (many) points of America is that people are allowed to practice all their freedoms here including speech, religion, and right to assembly. It's fabulous really.
I heard the most disgusting things coming out of the mouths of some of my fellow Americans today. Mostly out of my fellow white Americans. I've never been so ashamed of people of my race in general. Some of the things I heard shouldn't be typed or repeated. But of some of the milder there were many scoffs of "foreigners" and a lot of talk about how we could "let them into the park on 9/11". Because clearly, since 19 men none of these people knew or agreed with doing horrible things on the other side of the continent nine years ago is a good reason to bar an entire class of people from freely going about their business.
Now that I've got that off my chest, let me talk about what I wanted to touch on originally. Segue!
Many of the kids I was helping amuse today weren't alive in 2001. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing. I was in school. Some business class that didn't do me any good. At the time I didn't even know what the World Trade Center looked like. Sheltered southern girl. I suspect that this is very similar to people talking about how they remember what they were doing when they found out that the Challenger blew up, or Kennedy was assassinated, or Pearl Harbor was attacked. The world has changed so much in the last nine years. Much of it for the worse. I and grew up in those nine years. I came of age, started driving, voting, and drinking in those nine years. (I just got really close to telling you how old I am.) In essence, who I am as an adult has been changed by the events on 9/11/2001. I would not be the same sort of political thinker if I had come of age under an inept and awkward Bush Administration who was not armed with the political power gifted it by the events of that day. I would not be a liberal in all probability. And there are people who have never known anything else!
I know this isn't groundbreaking. I imagine the same can be said by older people than about me and the Vietnam War, the Nixon Administration, or (again) the Kennedy Assassination. But knowing how our country and our world have changed since then, I cry for the children of the post-9/11 era. Don't get me wrong, I know the world wasn't all sunshine and daisies before then. But these children are growing up in a world where the First Amendment isn't a given. You're only allowed free speech and free exercise of your religious liberties if you don't look like you might be a terrorist. They have a world where anyone who says the wrong things is looked at suspiciously by their government. Where the economic stability of the now as well as their own futures are not too high a price to pay for two ill-advised wars. And lets look at these wars for a moment.
First is the joint invasion of Afghanistan by the US, UK, and the "coalition of the willing" shortly following 9/11 in 2001. We're still there. We've been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for nine years now. That's longer than any other war America has ever fought aside from Vietnam. And we're on the way to passing that one. Believe me. Second is the even more ill-advised invasion of Iraq originally to be termed Operation Iraqi Liberation until some genius at the Pentagon realized that spelled OIL. Known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, we've been fighting there since 2003. "Combat Operations" are over now. Twice. Once for each President, natch, and we only have 50,000 more fighting men and women there.
But you all know this. In short, these kids don't remember. They have never experienced a world without these problems. And unless we get our house in order and start framing our policy around something other than a regrettable tragedy of nearly ten years they won't ever know anything else.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Getting Personal
This post is going to be a lot more personal and a lot less political than usual. Feel free to skip it. I'll try not to do this too often. Then again, as the feminists taught us, the personal is political.
I have lots of things I'm good at. Unfortunately, right now they feel like they're none of the things I NEED to be good at. I just graduated college in what has to be the crappiest job market since the early Eighties (see, this IS political) and now I've moved all the way across the country to live where I want to. I have my Bachelors in Landscape Architecture (really, politics is just a hobby). So, I'm good at all sorts of things. Staying amused through the internet, video games, riding my bike, blogging, photography, bonsai, fishtanks, all sorts of things. But I'm not good at things like this. Applying for real jobs, interviews, treading the fine line of honest but not too honest during interviews, paying bills consistently, finding a job that pays more than minimum wage, seeming like I can actually do what I went to school for, and generally acting like an adult.
Unfortunately, those are the things I need to be good at right now. In another time, in another economy I could get an entry level job at some firm somewhere where no one expects me to be good at anything particularly other than learning to be good at things. Which is something I'm good at. But in this economy all the jobs I'm finding are jobs that require experience or being able to feign experience. Which I'm bad at. In short, to get the job I've been told I need I need to be good already at all the things I'd just pick up along the way in an entry level job.
This is all due to the economy. Since there are no entry level jobs I have two options. I can fight it out in the viper pit for something minimum wage at the nearest grocery store or whatnot which seems to be what most people with an education below PhD are doing. Which is why I'm having no luck there. Why hire someone with a Bachelors when you can hire someone who has a Masters to stock shelves at Safeway or Kroger? Our economy is so week right now that people with Masters Degrees are looking for part-time, minimum wage work. How am I supposed to compete? Or for that matter people who dropped out of high school or have GEDs? Geez. They're really screwed. My other option is to apply for all those jobs I feel totally unqualified for. And even if I am, and even if I get hired, I'll be scared to death to even go to work. I mean, really? Putting me in charge of things?
I have lots of things I'm good at. Unfortunately, right now they feel like they're none of the things I NEED to be good at. I just graduated college in what has to be the crappiest job market since the early Eighties (see, this IS political) and now I've moved all the way across the country to live where I want to. I have my Bachelors in Landscape Architecture (really, politics is just a hobby). So, I'm good at all sorts of things. Staying amused through the internet, video games, riding my bike, blogging, photography, bonsai, fishtanks, all sorts of things. But I'm not good at things like this. Applying for real jobs, interviews, treading the fine line of honest but not too honest during interviews, paying bills consistently, finding a job that pays more than minimum wage, seeming like I can actually do what I went to school for, and generally acting like an adult.
Unfortunately, those are the things I need to be good at right now. In another time, in another economy I could get an entry level job at some firm somewhere where no one expects me to be good at anything particularly other than learning to be good at things. Which is something I'm good at. But in this economy all the jobs I'm finding are jobs that require experience or being able to feign experience. Which I'm bad at. In short, to get the job I've been told I need I need to be good already at all the things I'd just pick up along the way in an entry level job.
This is all due to the economy. Since there are no entry level jobs I have two options. I can fight it out in the viper pit for something minimum wage at the nearest grocery store or whatnot which seems to be what most people with an education below PhD are doing. Which is why I'm having no luck there. Why hire someone with a Bachelors when you can hire someone who has a Masters to stock shelves at Safeway or Kroger? Our economy is so week right now that people with Masters Degrees are looking for part-time, minimum wage work. How am I supposed to compete? Or for that matter people who dropped out of high school or have GEDs? Geez. They're really screwed. My other option is to apply for all those jobs I feel totally unqualified for. And even if I am, and even if I get hired, I'll be scared to death to even go to work. I mean, really? Putting me in charge of things?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
2010 Overview
On September 4th I think it's about time to take a minute to talk about the election coming up in November. Overall the narrative coming out of the 24/7 news machine is that it's an anti-incumbent, anti-democratic year. That's only partly true. It is an anti-Democratic year insofar as every midterm after a new president is elected is an anti-enter President's party here year. It isn't as much an anti-incumbent year as has been harped on by that same news machine. Only a couple handfuls of incumbents have lost so far; Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett, and Lisa Murkowski coming to mind. If this were truly as anti-incumbent a year as the media wants to claim it is you'd have seen upsets of other candidates like Blanche Lincoln and John McCain from the determined challengers they faced. But lets look more broadly at what we can expect.
For breakdowns of individual races, and all the statistics you could ever want check out Five Thirty Eight, which recently moved to a shiny new NY Times page. You'll find Nate Silver and his team's regressions predicting what will happen come November based on polling data. I'm going to go with something close to an educated guess using what I know (which includes Nate's regressions). All of what I said is true above. It's still a nasty year for Democrats. We can talk about why that is for hours. Some of it is the Bush Economy that we're still reeling from, some of it from simple electoral functions, and some of it from how badly the Democrats have dropped the ball on their messaging. Despite the Party of No, the DNC has plenty to run on including Health Care Reform, Credit Card Regulation, changes in the Student Loan department, and much more. And they're doing a terrible job messaging. This whole summer has been about nothing but how crazy the right is now. And even if they're scary, if that's all we're talking about, somebody at the DNC isn't doing their job. Scratch that. Everybody at the DNC isn't doing their job.
I expect the Democrats to hang onto control of both the House and the Senate this year. There. I've said it flat out. I don't expect it to be pretty and I don't expect their majorities to be described in terms besides words like small, pitiful, and ineffective, once the voting is done though. On the ugly side, that means we're likely to end up at 112th Congress that's even less effective and even more gridlocked than the 111th. On the good side, if the Democrats can maintain control of Congress, then they get to do the redrawing of the House District lines. That is something that we simply can't afford to have Republicans doing. Redistricting occurs only every ten years to match up with newly updated data from the Census. It has a much more far reaching effect on the country than having the Democrats receiving the blame for a highly divided and ineffective 112th Congress. As not fun as that will be. I'll be this up front about it. It is imperative that men like Jim DeMint and Chuck Grassley do not get to redraw the House Districts. Not that I expect the Dems to be wholly non-partisan if they get the opportunity, but because when Republicans do it, the do it for keeps. They use (dare I say abuse) the power to disenfranchise large groups of people of color and other maligned minorities. They manage, in essence, to mathematically for stall the day when conservative, white, fundamentalist Christians don't rule the roost. That day is coming, and having house lines drawn to represent the new makeup of America rather than fight it can make it arrive sooner.
And if I'm wrong? I expect the House to fall before the Senate. And while the idea of "Speaker Boehner" scares me to death (for the record, I'm not a massive fan of Speaker Pelosi either), it's better in the long run than having the Senate full of Republicans again. Not to be forgotten is the tiny (teeny tiny teeny teeny tiny) advantage of having the President of the Senate on our side. Who's the President of the Senate? Why, the Vice President of course, Joe Biden. In cases where the Senate ends in a tied vote, the Vice President casts the tie breaker. One of the many rewards for winning the Executive two years ago.
So in short, get on message, get out the vote, cross your fingers.
For breakdowns of individual races, and all the statistics you could ever want check out Five Thirty Eight, which recently moved to a shiny new NY Times page. You'll find Nate Silver and his team's regressions predicting what will happen come November based on polling data. I'm going to go with something close to an educated guess using what I know (which includes Nate's regressions). All of what I said is true above. It's still a nasty year for Democrats. We can talk about why that is for hours. Some of it is the Bush Economy that we're still reeling from, some of it from simple electoral functions, and some of it from how badly the Democrats have dropped the ball on their messaging. Despite the Party of No, the DNC has plenty to run on including Health Care Reform, Credit Card Regulation, changes in the Student Loan department, and much more. And they're doing a terrible job messaging. This whole summer has been about nothing but how crazy the right is now. And even if they're scary, if that's all we're talking about, somebody at the DNC isn't doing their job. Scratch that. Everybody at the DNC isn't doing their job.
I expect the Democrats to hang onto control of both the House and the Senate this year. There. I've said it flat out. I don't expect it to be pretty and I don't expect their majorities to be described in terms besides words like small, pitiful, and ineffective, once the voting is done though. On the ugly side, that means we're likely to end up at 112th Congress that's even less effective and even more gridlocked than the 111th. On the good side, if the Democrats can maintain control of Congress, then they get to do the redrawing of the House District lines. That is something that we simply can't afford to have Republicans doing. Redistricting occurs only every ten years to match up with newly updated data from the Census. It has a much more far reaching effect on the country than having the Democrats receiving the blame for a highly divided and ineffective 112th Congress. As not fun as that will be. I'll be this up front about it. It is imperative that men like Jim DeMint and Chuck Grassley do not get to redraw the House Districts. Not that I expect the Dems to be wholly non-partisan if they get the opportunity, but because when Republicans do it, the do it for keeps. They use (dare I say abuse) the power to disenfranchise large groups of people of color and other maligned minorities. They manage, in essence, to mathematically for stall the day when conservative, white, fundamentalist Christians don't rule the roost. That day is coming, and having house lines drawn to represent the new makeup of America rather than fight it can make it arrive sooner.
And if I'm wrong? I expect the House to fall before the Senate. And while the idea of "Speaker Boehner" scares me to death (for the record, I'm not a massive fan of Speaker Pelosi either), it's better in the long run than having the Senate full of Republicans again. Not to be forgotten is the tiny (teeny tiny teeny teeny tiny) advantage of having the President of the Senate on our side. Who's the President of the Senate? Why, the Vice President of course, Joe Biden. In cases where the Senate ends in a tied vote, the Vice President casts the tie breaker. One of the many rewards for winning the Executive two years ago.
So in short, get on message, get out the vote, cross your fingers.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Mission Accomplished! Again!
Having just finished watching President Obama's prime time address on the end of the Iraq War, I thought I'd put my thoughts to digital paper. A simple list of "pros and cons" if you will, seems a good place to start.
Cons:
As the title suggests, this felt, to me, very much like President Bush's "Aircraft Carrier, Mission Accomplished" speech. The fact is that, whether the mission title has changed or not, whether the troops left are classified as "combat troops" or not, we still have 50,000 American warriors stationed in this country.
I saw very little discussion of what we've actually accomplished. This was very much more a "we're done" speech than a "we've won" speech. Trying to point to tangible things that have spelled a US victory in Iraq is hard. And Americans, more than any other country in the world, don't like losing wars. Or even ending wars on an ambiguous note. We tend to accept as the American public, nothing short of full blown victory. And that's hard when you can't define victory.
This speech was INCREDIBLY kind to the Bush Administration. So kind I don't even know how to talk about it. If we track back, the first reason we invaded was because Iraq was in bed with al Qaeda. That didn't hold up. And so, the justification for war became Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We launched our invasion under those premises. When it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq the reasoning morphed again. And ever since, we've been in Iraq in order to bring "freedom and democracy" to "that region of the world". Which is really just a nice metaphor for we're already there and would look foolish if we left now. I understand that President Obama doesn't want to dwell on the Bush Administration. He doesn't want to dwell so much that his administration refuses to haul anyone of any importance up on charges. Fine. We'll just let our own government break the law. It doesn't matter.
Pros:
Well, there aren't many. It's true that this is a step (a baby step) toward ending this unjust and prolonged war. It's also true that this is sticking to the time table that President Obama set up for leaving Iraq after entering office. Maybe that means we can believe him when he says the 50,000 men and women who are still there will come home next year. And finally, it means that the President is fulfilling a campaign promise.
Those lists are a bit lopsided. I'm reporting. You decide.
Cons:
As the title suggests, this felt, to me, very much like President Bush's "Aircraft Carrier, Mission Accomplished" speech. The fact is that, whether the mission title has changed or not, whether the troops left are classified as "combat troops" or not, we still have 50,000 American warriors stationed in this country.
I saw very little discussion of what we've actually accomplished. This was very much more a "we're done" speech than a "we've won" speech. Trying to point to tangible things that have spelled a US victory in Iraq is hard. And Americans, more than any other country in the world, don't like losing wars. Or even ending wars on an ambiguous note. We tend to accept as the American public, nothing short of full blown victory. And that's hard when you can't define victory.
This speech was INCREDIBLY kind to the Bush Administration. So kind I don't even know how to talk about it. If we track back, the first reason we invaded was because Iraq was in bed with al Qaeda. That didn't hold up. And so, the justification for war became Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We launched our invasion under those premises. When it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq the reasoning morphed again. And ever since, we've been in Iraq in order to bring "freedom and democracy" to "that region of the world". Which is really just a nice metaphor for we're already there and would look foolish if we left now. I understand that President Obama doesn't want to dwell on the Bush Administration. He doesn't want to dwell so much that his administration refuses to haul anyone of any importance up on charges. Fine. We'll just let our own government break the law. It doesn't matter.
Pros:
Well, there aren't many. It's true that this is a step (a baby step) toward ending this unjust and prolonged war. It's also true that this is sticking to the time table that President Obama set up for leaving Iraq after entering office. Maybe that means we can believe him when he says the 50,000 men and women who are still there will come home next year. And finally, it means that the President is fulfilling a campaign promise.
Those lists are a bit lopsided. I'm reporting. You decide.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Dirty Politicians
Its long been no secret to progressives that one of the most important things a politician can do is put their money where their mouth is. No. Let me rephrase. Where a politician gets there money becomes their mouth. Or what comes out of it. Something like that. You know what I mean. I personally feel like Republicans (especially those on the far-right) don't care so much about where you funding comes from if you vote the right way. But that's another post.
One of a number of key planks of the progressive agenda is tackling climate change. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, getting anyone in Washington to move on this subject seems to require Herculean efforts. And for every dollar in a politician's war chest that comes from a group who is into climate change denial or just doesn't want to do anything about climate change, the less likely that politician is to want to be part of the solution. Without further adeu I present the top 10 Democratic and Republican incumbent Senators in terms of campaign contributions from the oil and coal industries. Let's take a look at this list and break it down a bit. The first couple of things I notice are these:
One of a number of key planks of the progressive agenda is tackling climate change. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, getting anyone in Washington to move on this subject seems to require Herculean efforts. And for every dollar in a politician's war chest that comes from a group who is into climate change denial or just doesn't want to do anything about climate change, the less likely that politician is to want to be part of the solution. Without further adeu I present the top 10 Democratic and Republican incumbent Senators in terms of campaign contributions from the oil and coal industries. Let's take a look at this list and break it down a bit. The first couple of things I notice are these:
- Fully 1/5 of all Senators owe the Oil and Coal industries at least $10,000 in campaign funds
- 17 of the 20 that make up that 1/5 owe at least $30,000
- Republicans usually owe considerably more than Democrats
- The number one benefactor is Democrat from Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln (ahead of Lisa Murkowski from Alaska!)
- The list of "honorees" don't call any one region of the country home
- Russ Feingold is now the senator from the great new state of Wisconscion (probably a new, weird scion of Wisconsin)
It's important to know where your elected representatives get their contributions from. It's important to know because these contributions don't come free. They come with the expectation that these senators will do favors for the industries who did the giving usually worth many times the amount donated. Recent examples include Ben Nelson and the teat of the healthcare industry as he fought valiantly for his insurance buddies to eliminate the popular Public Option from the Health Reform Bill and Blanche Lincoln and the epic job she's doing for the Oil industry in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon Spill. That first link for Lincoln also has a drop down for different years. 2008 tells us that John McCain received more than double the donations that the President did from the Oil and Gas industry during the 2008 campaign.
The fact is, our political system rewards politicians for diving into the very bottoms of lobbyists pockets and coming up with as much cash as they can. Winning a race for House or Senate is expensive. That's why decisions like the recent Citizens United v. FEC case so directly effect who represents us and what kind of government we can have. Before the Citizens United case there were caps on how much money a corporation could give to a candidate. Now, there are none, so you can expect to see those numbers go up in the next few election cycles. This sort of buying and selling of elected representatives has been going on a long time, but it has gotten much worse in the last few decades. We need to put a stop to this in the only ways we know how. We have to give our time and our money to candidates who really deserve it. Who aren't in some industry's pocket before the ever step foot in the Capital Building. And even more important that our time and our money is our votes. Research the people who are on your ballots. Especially for high federal positions like House, Senate, and the Presidency. Statistics show that once you get to Washington, you usually leave by choice. The incumbency effect is a powerful thing. Let's use it to our advantage and get people who answer to us and not to industry elected to the 112th Congress.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Afghan Update
This one's gonna be short and sweet folks.
This story originally posted in the New York Observer is making the internet rounds, including Huff Po and boingboing.net. It posits that the reporter who wrote the story accompanying the photo of the Afghan woman who had her nose and ears cut off by the Taliban (that I posted and linked to here) has a conflict of interest because her husband is involved in the Afghan occupation. While I agree that the article in Time was pretty pro continued war, my post was not. But I do think that since I linked to the story and it is still evolving in significant ways that you should be made aware. If it's important to you, go ahead and read John Gorenfeld's article that I linked to above.
Just so you know.
This story originally posted in the New York Observer is making the internet rounds, including Huff Po and boingboing.net. It posits that the reporter who wrote the story accompanying the photo of the Afghan woman who had her nose and ears cut off by the Taliban (that I posted and linked to here) has a conflict of interest because her husband is involved in the Afghan occupation. While I agree that the article in Time was pretty pro continued war, my post was not. But I do think that since I linked to the story and it is still evolving in significant ways that you should be made aware. If it's important to you, go ahead and read John Gorenfeld's article that I linked to above.
Just so you know.
Monday, August 16, 2010
I've remembered!
If you read my previous post on SB 1070, the for-profit prison system, and marriage equality you will remember that I said I had another issue that I thought important to discuss but had forgotten it at the time I sat down to write. Well....I've remembered!
It's this "Ground Zero Mosque" business. Everyone's freaking out. The President has weighed in on the topic during the annual Iftar dinner (did Bush do that too? Would that make him a closet Muslim?) at the White House. Polls have been taken every which way with (surprisingly) Fox News' being the best. And news and opinion people of all stripes have had their say. So now I'm going to have mine.
Firstly, check out the map at the top of the 538.com post I linked to. It's the second link down in the above paragraph. That's what people mean by "at Ground Zero". They actually mean not at Ground Zero. The proposed location is some 5 blocks from Ground Zero in a closed Burlington Coat Factory. So important fact number one is that when someone says, "They're going to build a Mosque at Ground Zero! That's so wrong!" they have their facts wrong.
Important point number two, more widely disseminated by the media, is the fact that this is really a community center. It will have worship spaces. But it'll also have a swimming pool and art rooms and all sorts of stuff. It's a sort of Islamic YMCA as this sketch from Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution makes clear.
Important point number three, which should be noted to be the most important, is that Amendment One to the Constitution states in part:
President Obama had a moment at the Iftar that I think reminds me of the way he talked on the campaign trail. It's very moving. In part, this is what he had to say.
Let's be honest. This is just intolerance and muslim bashing. Just like the rest of the last ten years. I'm pretty thoroughly ashamed of my country and how it has reacted to the events of 9/11. It could have been a turning point for us and for the world. Instead it's just another excuse for war and division.
EDIT: They have a wonderful post with a couple of points I didn't even think of over at Feministe. Take a look.
It's this "Ground Zero Mosque" business. Everyone's freaking out. The President has weighed in on the topic during the annual Iftar dinner (did Bush do that too? Would that make him a closet Muslim?) at the White House. Polls have been taken every which way with (surprisingly) Fox News' being the best. And news and opinion people of all stripes have had their say. So now I'm going to have mine.
Firstly, check out the map at the top of the 538.com post I linked to. It's the second link down in the above paragraph. That's what people mean by "at Ground Zero". They actually mean not at Ground Zero. The proposed location is some 5 blocks from Ground Zero in a closed Burlington Coat Factory. So important fact number one is that when someone says, "They're going to build a Mosque at Ground Zero! That's so wrong!" they have their facts wrong.
Important point number two, more widely disseminated by the media, is the fact that this is really a community center. It will have worship spaces. But it'll also have a swimming pool and art rooms and all sorts of stuff. It's a sort of Islamic YMCA as this sketch from Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution makes clear.
Important point number three, which should be noted to be the most important, is that Amendment One to the Constitution states in part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofThat's the first part of the very short, very explicit First Amendment. Our country doesn't have an official religion. Congress can't make an official religion. And people are free to practice their religion how, when, and where they want provided that it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights; which Islam doesn't.
President Obama had a moment at the Iftar that I think reminds me of the way he talked on the campaign trail. It's very moving. In part, this is what he had to say.
You're free to make the argument that a mosque or Islamic cultural center that close to Ground Zero is in poor taste. I don't think it is. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who want to actually stop the construction/move in. They want to use eminent domain and other governmental powers to keep this from happening. And that's unconstitutional. In short, I don't care if you think muslims are the spawn of satan. In this country they're free to worship. And I'll fight for that right. Me. The damned atheist. Freedom of Religion, as it's enshrined in the Constitution doesn't just mean Protestant versions of Christianity that you're okay with. You don't get to pick and choose. The freedoms granted American citizens by the Constitution come free to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, sex, religion, ability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, pregnancy, how many piercings they have, whether they like oranges or not, or any other status that you can thing of to use to discriminate against people.
Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.
Let's be honest. This is just intolerance and muslim bashing. Just like the rest of the last ten years. I'm pretty thoroughly ashamed of my country and how it has reacted to the events of 9/11. It could have been a turning point for us and for the world. Instead it's just another excuse for war and division.
EDIT: They have a wonderful post with a couple of points I didn't even think of over at Feministe. Take a look.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Mashup
Today's going to be a bit of a mashup because I have several things I want to talk about. Marriage equality and a bit of SB 1070 related news out of Arizona. I had one other thing but it's escaped me. Let's start with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, SB 1070 (the Papers Please Law), and the Corrections Corporation of America.
First, the facts. It is not actually against the law to be in America without documentation. From the way the media talks about undocumented immigrants I know that that may surprise some of you. So that means that Paper Please isn't just some new law seeking to crack down on illegal behavior, it's seeking to make a behavior that isn't against the law now illegal. And what usually happens when you break the law? You go to jail. Here's where this article comes in from Phoenix's CBS 5 news. That article is really ancillary to the one I was searching for but can't find. It contains the most important bits though. Here's the quote.
The second one mentioned also has a wife who is still lobbying for CCA. In short, by passing SB 1070 and making being in Arizona without documentation (or, honestly, looking like you might need documentation that you don't have on you right now) illegal you would be sending thousands of prisoners into the heavily used private prison system in Arizona which is not exactly run by, but certainly dominated by CCA. It's all a big corporate scheme to net her friends in the private prison-industrial complex as much money as possible at the expense of all those nasty brown people she doesn't care about. When asked about the lobbying connections by two of her senior advisors Governor Brewer consistently refuses to answer and even pulls a Sharron Angle and runs away. She knows what she's doing, she's been caught, and she doesn't want to admit it to the people of Arizona. Because she wants her own term as their Governor one day (she was elevated to the top spot when Janet Napolitano, a democrat, accepted the directorship of the Department of Homeland Security from then newly elected President Obama). That's about all on 1070. On to Marriage Equality.
You know what I hate about the fight for Gay Marriage? That it's called Gay Marriage. And that it's viewed as the most important fucking thing on the "gay agenda". You know, right there at the top of the list in big bold letters. Everything else is secondary.
Queer people are fighting for the right to get married. Not the right to get "gay married" and as long as we, straight people, and the media keep talking about "Gay Marriage" it's going to be viewed as something separate and different from the institution of marriage that straight people are used to. When you're married you do all those things that married people do. When you're gay married somehow being tied to the bed doing it up the ass while wearing skin-tight leather outfits becomes mandatory in peoples minds. It's just another way to make those of us who are restricted from marriage currently seem weird, alien, and not at all deserving or the right to get married. It's just damned othering!
Let's not even talk about how all the energy put into marriage equality by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign is that much less energy that is used to work on issues that affect all queer people regardless of whether they're partnered, poly, or ever interested in marriage at all like ENDA, housing issues, and general acceptance. I would be much more supported right now if we were to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA than if Congress were to make marriage equality a reality as much as I might cheer for it. And what about those of us who are romantically involved with more than one person. Oh damn! That's right, I said it. Some of us crazy queer liberals might actually WANT to be married to more than one person. We might want all our relationships sanctioned. I know that's one of the BIG SCARY things that conservatives continue to talk about. That if we make gay marriage legal suddenly people will want to marry more than one person. And that would affect you in what ways that letting just two strangers you've never met be married doesn't?
So in short, my rant is that we're viewing this as a Big Freaking Deal when it really shouldn't be, we're talking about it in ways that are unproductive, and we aren't thinking about everyone. Still!
Sorry for all that.
First, the facts. It is not actually against the law to be in America without documentation. From the way the media talks about undocumented immigrants I know that that may surprise some of you. So that means that Paper Please isn't just some new law seeking to crack down on illegal behavior, it's seeking to make a behavior that isn't against the law now illegal. And what usually happens when you break the law? You go to jail. Here's where this article comes in from Phoenix's CBS 5 news. That article is really ancillary to the one I was searching for but can't find. It contains the most important bits though. Here's the quote.
A recent CBS 5 News investigation found that two of Brewer's top advisers have ties to the private prison industry. One is a current lobbyist for Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA. The second is a former lobbyist for the same company.
The second one mentioned also has a wife who is still lobbying for CCA. In short, by passing SB 1070 and making being in Arizona without documentation (or, honestly, looking like you might need documentation that you don't have on you right now) illegal you would be sending thousands of prisoners into the heavily used private prison system in Arizona which is not exactly run by, but certainly dominated by CCA. It's all a big corporate scheme to net her friends in the private prison-industrial complex as much money as possible at the expense of all those nasty brown people she doesn't care about. When asked about the lobbying connections by two of her senior advisors Governor Brewer consistently refuses to answer and even pulls a Sharron Angle and runs away. She knows what she's doing, she's been caught, and she doesn't want to admit it to the people of Arizona. Because she wants her own term as their Governor one day (she was elevated to the top spot when Janet Napolitano, a democrat, accepted the directorship of the Department of Homeland Security from then newly elected President Obama). That's about all on 1070. On to Marriage Equality.
You know what I hate about the fight for Gay Marriage? That it's called Gay Marriage. And that it's viewed as the most important fucking thing on the "gay agenda". You know, right there at the top of the list in big bold letters. Everything else is secondary.
Queer people are fighting for the right to get married. Not the right to get "gay married" and as long as we, straight people, and the media keep talking about "Gay Marriage" it's going to be viewed as something separate and different from the institution of marriage that straight people are used to. When you're married you do all those things that married people do. When you're gay married somehow being tied to the bed doing it up the ass while wearing skin-tight leather outfits becomes mandatory in peoples minds. It's just another way to make those of us who are restricted from marriage currently seem weird, alien, and not at all deserving or the right to get married. It's just damned othering!
Let's not even talk about how all the energy put into marriage equality by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign is that much less energy that is used to work on issues that affect all queer people regardless of whether they're partnered, poly, or ever interested in marriage at all like ENDA, housing issues, and general acceptance. I would be much more supported right now if we were to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA than if Congress were to make marriage equality a reality as much as I might cheer for it. And what about those of us who are romantically involved with more than one person. Oh damn! That's right, I said it. Some of us crazy queer liberals might actually WANT to be married to more than one person. We might want all our relationships sanctioned. I know that's one of the BIG SCARY things that conservatives continue to talk about. That if we make gay marriage legal suddenly people will want to marry more than one person. And that would affect you in what ways that letting just two strangers you've never met be married doesn't?
So in short, my rant is that we're viewing this as a Big Freaking Deal when it really shouldn't be, we're talking about it in ways that are unproductive, and we aren't thinking about everyone. Still!
Sorry for all that.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Marriage Issues
I'm a bit behind the times as far as reporting on the Proposition 8 ruling in California. I've been at work, so forgive me. I'd skip it, but I'm queer and so this is sort of a big deal. More than just break down the ruling, which I'll be doing a bit of, I hope to talk about this issue more broadly.
So, yes, Wednesday afternoon Judge Walker in California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 which passed in California on the same night as President Obama's election in 2008 is unconstitutional. He ruled that it violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 reads:
Now I'm going to dissect the ruling for a bit. It's downloadable online but it's 136 pages so this is by no means a thorough job.
Reading through, the first bit of text that really strikes my fancy is this.
So, yes, Wednesday afternoon Judge Walker in California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 which passed in California on the same night as President Obama's election in 2008 is unconstitutional. He ruled that it violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [bolding mine]The bold section there is the particularly important part. States, like California, cannot make laws that violated that bolded section. By saying that straight couples (and individuals by extension) are able to marry and gay couples cannot it sets up two unequal groups in direct violation of that last section about "equal protection of the laws". Less talked about, but I think no less important is Section 5:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.Seems to me that Congress should be getting along about now to make sure our equality is protected by law. Good luck getting them to do that one.
Now I'm going to dissect the ruling for a bit. It's downloadable online but it's 136 pages so this is by no means a thorough job.
Reading through, the first bit of text that really strikes my fancy is this.
...proponents in their trial brief promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences. At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.Mr. Blankenhorn was, in fact viewed by the judge as pretty much non-important. He has no credentials to suggest that he's an actual expert on relationships, marriage, or the government. All the things he was claiming to be an "expert witness" on. Continuing. In a section entitled "Credibility Determinations" the judge had this to say about Mr. Blankenhorn.
I think that speaks for itself. But it continues.David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, testified on marriage, fatherhood and family structure. Plaintiffs objected to Blankenhorn’s qualificationas an expert. For the reasons explained hereafter, Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions.
The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s opinions. Tr 2741:24-2742:3. The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight. [bolding mine]Moving on. Later in the document come what is referred to as "findings of fact". As it has been explained to me, these facts must be considered by any appeals court and the Supreme Court should the case be appealed that far. Among these findings are tidbits such as these.
19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.
21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.There are quite a few interesting findings of fact included in the ruling so I suggest you download it if you want to read up on a few more of them. I'm going to stretch this out into two posts so look for a broader discussion of the topic sometime soon!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Exit Strategy
That is the current cover for Tiime Magazine and it's causing quite a stir. While I don't necessarily support using women like this to sell magazines, the image tells a powerful story about our presence in Afghanistan and our exit strategy. The abridged story is here but you have to actually buy a copy to read the whole thing. Or sneak into your local Barnes & Noble and just sit down. Either way.
This is an excellent illustration of my larger issue with a simple withdrawal from either Iraq or Afghanistan since my conversion from blind Republicanism several years ago. Sure, upwards of 90% of the country can now agree that if we could go back in time and not elect George Bush/not invade Iraq and Afghanistan it would be a good thing. But we can't. We've been in Afghanistan for nine years now and Iraq for six. We've spent unimaginable resources and the lives of some 5,000 US service members not to mention a number of Iraqi and Afghan deaths that is almost impossible to calculate and the total hours and manpower spent discussing and debating the topic here in America. We ARE there. Sure, from our side of the fight it seems to be a great idea to get out while the getting's good. This is why President Obama ran on a platform of rapid and responsible withdrawal from both conflicts. The wars aren't popular at home. But have we taken a look at what withdrawal will mean to the countries we will be leaving our mess to? This is by no means an endorsement of continued fighting. What I'm saying is that the answer is far more nuanced that just a simple call to "bring them home" as we liberals are used to crying.
I believe (don't quote me) that we have been asked at least once by the Iraqi Provisional Government to go ahead and leave. If that's the wish of the Iraqi people I'll be the first to say we should comply. But I don't think we've had anything that specific out of Afghanistan. And that's where the woman pictured up top comes into play. There has been an increasing call/realization that any sort of meaningful withdrawal from Afghanistan will mean negotiations with the Taliban. In fact President Hamid Karzai has gone so far as to invite the Taliban to run for Parliament. This strikes me as frighteningly similar to the Hamas government that was legitimately elected in Gaza and Hezbollah's governmental aspirations in Lebanon. Legitimate, yes, good for the country as a whole though, probably not. The woman featured on the Time cover ran away from an abusive husband. When the husband found her at her family's house he went to the Taliban for a judgement. Her punishment was to have her nose and ears cut off with a knife. This was a little more than a year ago, eight years after the US entered Afghanistan. This is the sort of thing that may return in full force if the US leaves and the Taliban participates in and especially gains a majority in the Afghan government.
Many are hopeful that Afghanistan's Constitution will provide some protection from these sorts of abuses as the US leaves. Currently it does provide for women's rights as well as a mandatory female representation in Parliament of at least 25%. I think these things are good for Afghanistan. But what do I know, I'm just an American with a vastly foreign view on a place I've never been.
I'm not proposing to have the answers in this post. What I am suggesting is that the situation is much more complicated than even the best reporting we've seen in the United States would suggest. I think that much of what we ought to do will depend on what the Afghans themselves say they want. But in basing our reactions on that we have to understand just WHO it is that is doing the asking and whether they represent the whole population or not.
Discuss?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Here we go again.
My friend E who has his blog over at www.impossibletospell.com has an older post that I just now got around to reading that I think might be worth taking a look at. You can find it here. In it he posits essentially that there will be a "bubble" that is created around "green" jobs (specifically biofuel) much in the same way there was the .com bubble that was created and then wreaked havoc when it burst in the late 1990s. I think the theory is sound and want to play around with this idea a bit. Forgive me.
He starts by addressing the economics of the issue, talking about supply vs. demand and the Peak Oil phenomenon. All right on the mark.
Anyway, back to the biofuels. Simple high school economics explains why, as gas gets more expensive and it's quality goes down, alternatives that we now consider a tad too expensive will increase their market share. In fact, they already are in a tangential sort of way with the popularity of the Toyota Prius and new entries into America's fleet of vehicles coming soon like the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt (just priced at $41,000!) A number of different competitors exist including biodiesel, wind, solar, hell even nuclear is on the table. Suddenly that giant pile of radioactive goo left over doesn't look so bad.
He goes on to say, as I covered earlier up top, that the bust comes in if the economy does the same thing with new fuel sources that it did with the internet in the late 1990s. There IS an uncertainty about which of these new technologies will be what drives human power and innovation into the future. I'll grant that. I will however step aside for one moment and try and highlight one major difference between this and the .com bubble. While starting up an internet company requires capital it isn't physical in the way creating a company that builds thin-film solar cells or blades for an off-shore wind turbine are. I think that the physicality and the financial demands that are required to get in my be a hurdle that will help screen out all the "comp-sci dropouts with witty webaddresses", or at least a good number of them. Are their going to be businesses that fail as this industry emerges into its own, sure. But I'd like to think (and maybe I'm naive) that we'll figure this one out, if for no other reason than because we have to.
The real trick is that we an opportunity to set up a whole new industry here. Will we do it right, or will Bill Gates and Steve Jobs (metaphorically speaking) run the whole industry? We can just look at our government and see what happens when industry condenses to one or two major companies in an industry. You get crappy service and a high bill from AT&T and Verizon, it's all semantics which one you pick. You get screwed by the oil and gas industry no matter where the gas in your tank right now is BP or ExxonMobil. This is an opportunity we can't pass up. We MUST demand that this industry be built sustainably to create energy for us all instead of to create wealth for the very few.
And now we hit the crux of the matter.
We need to get ready. Our lives are going to change whether we like it or not. If we don't prepare for it it just means that when they do, it'll be that much uglier. It means changing where and how we live, what sort of density we think is appropriate (hint: think Europe or China, not rural Idaho or suburban California), what, how, and how often we use our vehicles, where and how we buy our food, and what we do to make a living. The era of cheap, easy energy is over. We've used up what's on our planet. Now we get to figure it out.
He starts by addressing the economics of the issue, talking about supply vs. demand and the Peak Oil phenomenon. All right on the mark.
I know environmentalists have been going on about peak oil since the 70′s, but it is bound to happen sooner or later. Note that doesn’t mean we’ll wake up one day to find the wells all dry. Just that we’ve drilled the most convenient wells first, and the price of oil will go up as the petroleum industry has to move on to lower grade wells, in less convenient places (ahem, Gulf of Mexico, ahem), at greater cost.He wrote this fairly early into what is now the Deepwater Horizon Saga but you can see what he's getting at. In fact, I would argue that unless government regulations about where and how we drill for oil change, especially in very deep waters we're going to have more Deepwater Horizons in our future and it's because we've already hit peak oil and are beginning to feel it. The Deepwater Horizon well is in 5000 feet of water. That's a mile under the surface of the ocean essentially. Do you think it was cheap for BP to drill that well? And do you think if there were easier wells for them to drill they'd drill them? Yeah. We've already tapped the easy stuff. Now it's just a question of watching as quality goes down and price goes up. We've already had a little taste when gas was $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008 and a simple google search of the terms "$4 a gallon gas" produce a number of predictions that we'll see it again before the summer is gone. In milder terms, we've already mentally adjusted to a shift. I paid $3.13/gallon yesterday on the West Coast and I know that $2.50 is pretty normal in places where the prices trend lower than the national average. I can remember when gas was $0.99/gallon as a kid and how everyone started freaking out when it was suddenly $1.05. Welcome to the soft slide into the long fall that is peak oil.
Anyway, back to the biofuels. Simple high school economics explains why, as gas gets more expensive and it's quality goes down, alternatives that we now consider a tad too expensive will increase their market share. In fact, they already are in a tangential sort of way with the popularity of the Toyota Prius and new entries into America's fleet of vehicles coming soon like the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt (just priced at $41,000!) A number of different competitors exist including biodiesel, wind, solar, hell even nuclear is on the table. Suddenly that giant pile of radioactive goo left over doesn't look so bad.
Moreover, many of those technologies are expensive for ‘fixable’ reasons–there’s room for more R&D to make them cheaper or more efficient, they haven’t had the chance to get good economies-of-scale going (look at the price on electric cars). Oil and coal companies have benefited disproportionately from having the living shit subsidized out of them, but that could change. Not that I expect the US will stop kissing oil company ass any time soon, but if Monsanto or the Iowa Corn Growers Association decide they want to be move into the energy market, they may get the way paved for them.Yet another way to use the insane amount of corn grown in the midwest under federal subsidy. But farm subsidy reform and the food system are topics for another post.
He goes on to say, as I covered earlier up top, that the bust comes in if the economy does the same thing with new fuel sources that it did with the internet in the late 1990s. There IS an uncertainty about which of these new technologies will be what drives human power and innovation into the future. I'll grant that. I will however step aside for one moment and try and highlight one major difference between this and the .com bubble. While starting up an internet company requires capital it isn't physical in the way creating a company that builds thin-film solar cells or blades for an off-shore wind turbine are. I think that the physicality and the financial demands that are required to get in my be a hurdle that will help screen out all the "comp-sci dropouts with witty webaddresses", or at least a good number of them. Are their going to be businesses that fail as this industry emerges into its own, sure. But I'd like to think (and maybe I'm naive) that we'll figure this one out, if for no other reason than because we have to.
The real trick is that we an opportunity to set up a whole new industry here. Will we do it right, or will Bill Gates and Steve Jobs (metaphorically speaking) run the whole industry? We can just look at our government and see what happens when industry condenses to one or two major companies in an industry. You get crappy service and a high bill from AT&T and Verizon, it's all semantics which one you pick. You get screwed by the oil and gas industry no matter where the gas in your tank right now is BP or ExxonMobil. This is an opportunity we can't pass up. We MUST demand that this industry be built sustainably to create energy for us all instead of to create wealth for the very few.
And now we hit the crux of the matter.
...when I talk to non-scientists, including some really smart people about this issue, I hear a lot of variations on ‘Ok, so which one will it be? When the oil runs out, will we switch to ethanol? Will everything be solar powered? Who’s gonna win?’ The answer is, no one technology will replace the oil industry, ever. There’s no magic bullet. If oil and coal go way up in price, if consumers even ever start having to pay the full price of the mess they make, we’re not just going to swap one energy source for another and go on like nothing happened.
We need to get ready. Our lives are going to change whether we like it or not. If we don't prepare for it it just means that when they do, it'll be that much uglier. It means changing where and how we live, what sort of density we think is appropriate (hint: think Europe or China, not rural Idaho or suburban California), what, how, and how often we use our vehicles, where and how we buy our food, and what we do to make a living. The era of cheap, easy energy is over. We've used up what's on our planet. Now we get to figure it out.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Who's on cleanup duty?
I was going to write an economic article tonight for you, but Mia Mingus, fabulous activist that she is, tweeted this story from AlterNet this afternoon and I have to write about it. There's a similar article up at thenation.com. The other post will be up soon.
In short, BP, who since capping the gushing well in the Gulf early this week has been a bit more off the radar than they should be, has been using local prison labor to clean up Gulf beaches. I'm a southerner born and raised. I don't know why I didn't think to write about this before. When I initially saw photos of the cleanup crews working on the beaches I noticed that they were pretty much all African-American men. That should have been all the tip off I needed to start digging and see where BP's labor force is coming from. I didn't. But thankfully several other people are on top of the issue. Although it's been WAY underreported in my opinion if it's only being mentioned now. This was also a topic for discussion for Mike Malloy on my way home from work tonight. It seems he was keyed in from The Nation article.
So, lets take a look at this situation critically. BP is a foreign corporation. The US has higher incarceration rates than most industrialized nations and the inmate population is heavily skewed toward men and racial minorities. Inmates have few recognized rights when it comes to work including little to no pay. BP gets a tax write-off for every inmate they employ in the clean up effort. And every employed inmate is one less Gulf Coast resident who isn't being hired in an economy where jobs are already scarce.
According to the Pew Center on the States 1 in 31 US adults are either in prison or on parole. Men are five times more likely to be imprisoned than women and African-Americans are four times more likely to be imprisoned than white Americans. Is it any wonder that BP is using our prison population to do this dirty and dangerous work? And then denying them the rights to talk to the public and the press as well as the right to wear protective gear and respirators? No one else in society seems to care about these people, their welfare, or their rights. So BP is just following our lead. They found a cheap, disposable work force to clean up their mess for them. They don't have to pay anyone to do the clean up and they get a tax break for doing it to boot! BP has been all about saving money here from the beginning. In fact, the drive to save/make as much money as possible is why we have this problem. Just days before the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig as they were finishing the drilling a BP employee made the decision to use six pins to keep the riser pipe in line rather than the recommended twenty-one. That's #2 on this list published on BP's own website for reasons the well failed.
This is about BP and their behavior, make no mistake. But it's about much more than that. We (that is Americans) have been using free or nearly free prison labor for years. Starting with the mental image of prisoners stamping license plates we now uses these people to clean up highways, mow public right-of-ways, make goods for government usage including basic protective gear for the military, and the list goes on. This is about race relations in America. When African-American men are over-represented in the prison population, and we willingly employ prisoners to do dirty, dangerous, and difficult labor for little or no pay, that's called slavery. We simply find different ways to justify it in our modern era. This Prison-Industrial Complex is the true reason for such harsh sentencing in non-violent drug offender cases that pass though the US Justice System. An excellent example is the 100 to 1 ratio for mandatory minimum sentencing for cocaine and crack as outlined below from www.drugwarfacts.org:
What is not explained here is that many many times more African-Americans are arrested in possession of crack than white Americans. It's important that we keep feeding the system after all.
So, we feed the system and BP makes use of it. And the end result is that when BP makes an error and releases millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico and then makes only a half-hearted attempt to keep it off the area's beaches, they call in the free labor to clean it all up later. Nobody will care.
In short, BP, who since capping the gushing well in the Gulf early this week has been a bit more off the radar than they should be, has been using local prison labor to clean up Gulf beaches. I'm a southerner born and raised. I don't know why I didn't think to write about this before. When I initially saw photos of the cleanup crews working on the beaches I noticed that they were pretty much all African-American men. That should have been all the tip off I needed to start digging and see where BP's labor force is coming from. I didn't. But thankfully several other people are on top of the issue. Although it's been WAY underreported in my opinion if it's only being mentioned now. This was also a topic for discussion for Mike Malloy on my way home from work tonight. It seems he was keyed in from The Nation article.
So, lets take a look at this situation critically. BP is a foreign corporation. The US has higher incarceration rates than most industrialized nations and the inmate population is heavily skewed toward men and racial minorities. Inmates have few recognized rights when it comes to work including little to no pay. BP gets a tax write-off for every inmate they employ in the clean up effort. And every employed inmate is one less Gulf Coast resident who isn't being hired in an economy where jobs are already scarce.
According to the Pew Center on the States 1 in 31 US adults are either in prison or on parole. Men are five times more likely to be imprisoned than women and African-Americans are four times more likely to be imprisoned than white Americans. Is it any wonder that BP is using our prison population to do this dirty and dangerous work? And then denying them the rights to talk to the public and the press as well as the right to wear protective gear and respirators? No one else in society seems to care about these people, their welfare, or their rights. So BP is just following our lead. They found a cheap, disposable work force to clean up their mess for them. They don't have to pay anyone to do the clean up and they get a tax break for doing it to boot! BP has been all about saving money here from the beginning. In fact, the drive to save/make as much money as possible is why we have this problem. Just days before the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig as they were finishing the drilling a BP employee made the decision to use six pins to keep the riser pipe in line rather than the recommended twenty-one. That's #2 on this list published on BP's own website for reasons the well failed.
This is about BP and their behavior, make no mistake. But it's about much more than that. We (that is Americans) have been using free or nearly free prison labor for years. Starting with the mental image of prisoners stamping license plates we now uses these people to clean up highways, mow public right-of-ways, make goods for government usage including basic protective gear for the military, and the list goes on. This is about race relations in America. When African-American men are over-represented in the prison population, and we willingly employ prisoners to do dirty, dangerous, and difficult labor for little or no pay, that's called slavery. We simply find different ways to justify it in our modern era. This Prison-Industrial Complex is the true reason for such harsh sentencing in non-violent drug offender cases that pass though the US Justice System. An excellent example is the 100 to 1 ratio for mandatory minimum sentencing for cocaine and crack as outlined below from www.drugwarfacts.org:
As a result of the 1986 Act, federal law10 requires a five-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving five grams or more of crack cocaine, or 500 grams or more of powder cocaine, and a ten-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, or 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine. Because it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same mandatory minimum penalty, this penalty structure is commonly referred to as the '100-to-1 drug quantity ratio.'"
What is not explained here is that many many times more African-Americans are arrested in possession of crack than white Americans. It's important that we keep feeding the system after all.
So, we feed the system and BP makes use of it. And the end result is that when BP makes an error and releases millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico and then makes only a half-hearted attempt to keep it off the area's beaches, they call in the free labor to clean it all up later. Nobody will care.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Debt Hawkishness
Lets take an overview for a moment. Republicans far and wide are making the argument that we need to pay attention to and take care of the debt and deficit and as such, many of the Obama spending programs are completely unaffordable. Leaving aside for a moment how this worry over the debt was nowhere to be seen during the duration of the most recent Bush Administration while the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Act and other laws like it as well as two off the record wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were put into effect, this is a very convenient argument.
Republicans say they are worried about the deficit to the point that any action on the part of the President to continue and expand the current, shaky recovery is unacceptable. They stop short however, at any action that affects Republican pet projects that might make an actual impact on America's debt.
Simply by allowing the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts to expire along with his hold on the Estate Tax and allowing the Capital Gains and Dividends taxes to revert to the levels they were during President Clinton's administration as proposed in S. 722 in the 111th Congress as well as H.R. 470 and other similar bills we could save $3.5 Trillion through fiscal year 2017. That's simply by letting all of these tax advantage for the rich put in place by the Bush Administration to lapse. For those of you who are unaware, $3.5 Trillion is actually a dent in the federal debt of about $13.5 Trillion currently. Allowing any of these provision to be extended, as Republicans at large are running on, ADDS $3.5 Trillion to the federal debt over the next 7 years. Check out Florida Senate Candidate Marco Rubio's own website. He details his 12 ideas for helping the economy. Extending the Bush Tax Cuts permanently is his first plank! Remember that's $3.5 Trillion dollars through 2017. But the deficit and debt are just too much! Or watch this clip from Rachel Maddow. She covers all the salient facts. Carly Fiorina's discussion about how the tax cuts "pay for themselves" as well as each president's total debt increase running back to the Carter Administration. Spoiler, every Republican runs up the debt more than any Democrat.
Now that I've beaten that dead horse for a while, lets take a look at actual changes to the budget. I've written before about American defense spending and its relationship to our budget as a whole. But let me go over it again. We spend roughly $600 billion annually through the Department of Defense. That's more than the rest of the world combined. I'll advocate cutting the defense budget by half to $300 billion. If we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan that should be doable. All of this is with the understanding that such a cut would be implemented after going over the defense budget line by line with people who understand it better than I do, that is any such cuts would need military input.
The Federal Highway Administration got a budget of $40.1 billion in FY 2009. I understand that much of this goes to maintain existing roadways and that is a good thing. But we are still building new highways. The era of the car is over. Gas prices will only continue to climb as we move past peak oil. We need to look at ways to save in the FHWA and if not save, at least to redirect much of the funds dedicated to new road construction to other projects including intra-city light rail and HSR lines between cities. The administration has started doing this with the bailout funds but the percentages were far from adequate.
This post could go on and on. But it's intended to point out the pure hypocrisy of the GOP talking points as of late. If you are going to harp on the debt and deficit you can't keep advocating tax cuts for the rich and a 100% opposition to raising rates ever. The simple fact is that if the American people desire the continuation of services they have come to expect from their government including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare programs, and federal funding of Schools and Transportation along with a capable military and a growing middle class, the cash will have to come from somewhere. Because it sure isn't coming from anywhere now.
Republicans say they are worried about the deficit to the point that any action on the part of the President to continue and expand the current, shaky recovery is unacceptable. They stop short however, at any action that affects Republican pet projects that might make an actual impact on America's debt.
Simply by allowing the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts to expire along with his hold on the Estate Tax and allowing the Capital Gains and Dividends taxes to revert to the levels they were during President Clinton's administration as proposed in S. 722 in the 111th Congress as well as H.R. 470 and other similar bills we could save $3.5 Trillion through fiscal year 2017. That's simply by letting all of these tax advantage for the rich put in place by the Bush Administration to lapse. For those of you who are unaware, $3.5 Trillion is actually a dent in the federal debt of about $13.5 Trillion currently. Allowing any of these provision to be extended, as Republicans at large are running on, ADDS $3.5 Trillion to the federal debt over the next 7 years. Check out Florida Senate Candidate Marco Rubio's own website. He details his 12 ideas for helping the economy. Extending the Bush Tax Cuts permanently is his first plank! Remember that's $3.5 Trillion dollars through 2017. But the deficit and debt are just too much! Or watch this clip from Rachel Maddow. She covers all the salient facts. Carly Fiorina's discussion about how the tax cuts "pay for themselves" as well as each president's total debt increase running back to the Carter Administration. Spoiler, every Republican runs up the debt more than any Democrat.
Now that I've beaten that dead horse for a while, lets take a look at actual changes to the budget. I've written before about American defense spending and its relationship to our budget as a whole. But let me go over it again. We spend roughly $600 billion annually through the Department of Defense. That's more than the rest of the world combined. I'll advocate cutting the defense budget by half to $300 billion. If we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan that should be doable. All of this is with the understanding that such a cut would be implemented after going over the defense budget line by line with people who understand it better than I do, that is any such cuts would need military input.
The Federal Highway Administration got a budget of $40.1 billion in FY 2009. I understand that much of this goes to maintain existing roadways and that is a good thing. But we are still building new highways. The era of the car is over. Gas prices will only continue to climb as we move past peak oil. We need to look at ways to save in the FHWA and if not save, at least to redirect much of the funds dedicated to new road construction to other projects including intra-city light rail and HSR lines between cities. The administration has started doing this with the bailout funds but the percentages were far from adequate.
This post could go on and on. But it's intended to point out the pure hypocrisy of the GOP talking points as of late. If you are going to harp on the debt and deficit you can't keep advocating tax cuts for the rich and a 100% opposition to raising rates ever. The simple fact is that if the American people desire the continuation of services they have come to expect from their government including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare programs, and federal funding of Schools and Transportation along with a capable military and a growing middle class, the cash will have to come from somewhere. Because it sure isn't coming from anywhere now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
