Obama’s Elitism

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

One of the oddest things the Republicans are trying to pin on Obama is his supposed "elitism".

I really don’t understand it.  I mean, yes, Obama went to Harvard Law School and was the editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review.

This is… what… bad?

Are we back to this stupid old "I want my President to be a regular Joe that I can have a beer with" bullshit? 

Yeah.  Obama sucks at bowling.  Can’t have that in a president, can we?

Listen, we tried giving the presidency to wanna-have-a-beer-with Bush (who, by the way, went to Yale for crying out loud).  Didn’t exactly make a good President, huh?

But honestly — it’s pretty hard to pin on Obama.  He was exactly born with a silver spoon in his mouth.  What he made out of himself, he did it himself. 

And besides, if anyone deserves that elitist rap, it’s the McCain clan.  Just another blue collar couple like you and me:

Cindy McCain recently gave a rare private interview to CNN in which she disclosed her opinions on transportation in Arizona, her home state. The McCain’s have tried to distance themselves from elitism, but apparently Mrs. McCain believes that the only way to get around is by “small private plane.”

Here’s the video:

Now, I don’t know how many of you readers out there are from, or have been to, Arizona.  But I envision it as kind of easy to get around.  Lots of open space. 

In fact, as this documentary film shows, you can leave a baby in the middle of a typical Arizona road, and he chances are pretty good he won’t get crushed due to heavy traffic:

Now, if Cindy McCain thinks the only way to get around Arizona is by small private plane — well, that’s elitism, my friends.

Jimmy Carter Stole My Solution Retroactively

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & Deficit, Energy and Conservation, HistoryLeave a Comment

This afternoon, I wrote a lengthy post about the gas crisis, and I proposed that the best solution to get us out of this mess would be a concerted national effort to ween ourselves off of oil and gas.  I wrote:

If a President were to annouce a serious national effort to develop new (and hopefully clean) technology for running our cars — a national effort along the lines of the Manhatten Project or the NASA Mission to the Moon — that announcement alone would affect the oil and gas commodity markets, and bring some price relief as soon as it was announced.

Irony or ironies, a President did come pretty close to doing just that…. 29 years ago to the day when I wrote the above words.  Jimmy Carter delivered a televised speech on July 15, 1979, and had to say this about the energy crisis:

…We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.

Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.

In little more than two decades we’ve gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It’s a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade — a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I’m announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel — from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America’s energy security.

Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation’s first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.

Point four: I’m asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation’s utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

Point six: I’m proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I’m proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense — I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation’s strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.

[…]

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation’s problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Twelve hours from now I will speak again in Kansas City, to expand and to explain further our energy program. Just as the search for solutions to our energy shortages has now led us to a new awareness of our Nation’s deeper problems, so our willingness to work for those solutions in energy can strengthen us to attack those deeper problems.

I will continue to travel this country, to hear the people of America. You can help me to develop a national agenda for the 1980s. I will listen and I will act. We will act together. These were the promises I made three years ago, and I intend to keep them.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources — America’s people, America’s values, and America’s confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy secure nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God’s help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.

Thank you and good night.

Emphasis added.

Now there were certain parts in that speech where his cadence was very Kennedy Man-on-the-Moon-before-this-decade-is-out-esque.  And this is Jimmy Carter we’re talking about!

Of course, it never came to pass, because the following year, Republicans played the fear card over the Big Red Menace, and Ronald Reagan was voted into America.  America was treated to "Morning in America" ads featuring wheat thrashers and some such nonsense, and the whole Carter plan was thankfully forgotten.

Kind of wish your parents had listened to him, huh kids?

Why Are Gas Prices So High? (In Which I Solve The Problem)

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & Deficit, Energy and ConservationLeave a Comment

Gas_pricesOkay, since I’ve been on an economy/energy blogging tirade today, I think I’ll answer the question on every person’s mind: Why are gas prices so high?

I’ve wondered this myself.  Energy and economic aren’t my forte, but I’ve done a lot of reading on it lately, and I think I can boil it down to (admittedly oversimplified) layman’s terms.

The answer is quite simple.  Supply and demand.  As the demand for something goes up, the supply of it goes down (at least until more of it gets made).  And if the supply of something goes down, it become rarer.  And when things are rarer, the price goes up. 

Example: There’s only one Mona Lisa, and everybody would LOVE to own it.  High demand, low supply.  And we can’t make anymore.  Result?  The "price" of the Mona Lisa is "priceless". 

Example:  There’s only a few hundred first edition copies of "The Velveteen Rabbit", and they’re highly sought by book collectors.  High demand, low supply.  Price?  They’re each worth $10,000 or higher.  By contrast, there’s millions of recently-published versions of the "The Velveteen Rabbit".  Moderate demand, moderate supply to meet demand.  And they’re worth $9.95 at Borders.

Supply and demand.  That’s Economic 101. You with me so far?  Grasp that and you grasp the rest of this really long post.

So what’s the deal with gas prices? 

InsanegaspricesWell, first of all, let’s consider some things unique to gas, as opposed to, say, grain or some other commodity.  Prices for all commodities fluctuate, but gasoline prices are generally more volatile than prices of other goods.  Why?  Think about it.  If grain were explode in price the way gas has, consumers would substitute grain with some other food product.  Or go without.  Thus, demand for grain would go down.  And when demand goes down, prices go down.  For grain and most other commodities, it’s self-regulating, in a sense — what goes up in price goes down in demand, which in turn, cause prices to go back down.

But unlike grain, we can’t substitute gas with something else (or go without).  We can’t fill our tanks with something other than gas.  I mean, we COMPLAIN, but we still fill our tanks, don’t we?  So from a market standpoint, we don’t switch.  Which makes it different from grain. 

Okay, so what’s the deal with supply and demand viz-a-viz gas?

Well, the supply has been relatively constant over the years.  I mean, sure, there have been situational things which cause the supply of crude oil to become scarce.  In the 1970’s, the OPEC nations intentionally withheld the supply of gas, allowing it to just sit in the Middle East, in order to create a supply crisis, which drove up prices.  That wasn’t very nice.  And certainly, conflicts in the Middle East create a strain on the supply of crude oil.  But generally speaking, supply has been relatively constant.

2550850343_04f5150eecThe thing that has really changed with gas… is the demand.  Let me ‘splain.

You know how gas prices seem to spike up on Memorial Day weekend?  That’s because demand is up, compared to supply.  That’s a seasonal thing (and there is plenty of that — gas prices are always higher in the summer due to increased demand — more travelling, people using boats, etc.). 

But that demand increase is, like I say, a spike.  It doesn’t explain the steady increase we’ve seen over the past few years.

No, the kind of demand I’m talking about is something else.

Specifically, it’s this: China and India (especially China) are getting off their scooters, bikes, and rickshaws — and buying cars.  This is a phenomenon that really has exploded in the last decade, as capitalism has crept into the Far East.

ChinaNow, I don’t know if you’ve heard, but China and India?  LOTS of people in those countries.  So when they start driving, that’s a heavy demand for gas.

Fuel energy, like everything else, takes place in a GLOBAL economy.  Don’t think for a second that Exxon, BP, Mobil, etc. are American companies which make the lion’s share of their money off of selling to Americans (or even Europeans).  They sell, as they should, do whoever will buy.  And if they have lots more customers competing for (roughly) the same supply of fuel, then the gas companies can (and do) raise prices.  Economics 101, baby.

You can cynically say that it is greed (and I often do), but actually, it’s just capitalism.  It’s just the free market.  Exxon is not a charity.  It exists to make money, which benefits its shareholders (which may include you, either directly as a stockholder, or indirectly through the mutual funds that you get as part of your 401(k) at work).

So that’s the reason.  Gas prices are high primarily because demand, globally, is high.  In fact, demand for gas is probably at its highest now because of short term factors (it’s summer, and we want to drive to the ocean and ride our boats), and long term factors (billions and billions of people worldwide are entering the global market of car driving).  And it’s the long term factors that will cause prices to continue to rise (just wait until this time next year, kids!)

Not all that complicated.  Demand going WAY up, while supplies are not going up to meet the demand.

Which beings me back to drilling in ANWR and the coastal regions.  Some say, "Well, if we drill in these areas, that will boost supply so that its more commensurate with demand".

Well, yeah, it will increase supply to be more commensurate with demand.  But how MUCH more commensurate?

AnwreiaRemember, drilling in ANWR and off the coasts will, by most estimates, only boost the U.S. supply by 2-5%.  However, that estimate is based on the assumption that everything pumped from ANWR and the coasts will stay in the U.S. 

But like I said before, the crude oil biz is multi-national.  So some, if not most, of that oil drilled is going to end up where the demand is — which (as I said) is in China and India and so on.  So a 2-5% increase in supply, small as it is, is even smaller when you understand that it is a mere 0.2% (or whatever) for the global supply.

So, unless Congress passes a law saying that everything pumped within the United States has to stay in the United States, we’re only talking about a savings of a 30 to 50 cents per barrel of oil for ANWR drilling, which translates to a penny or two on the overall gas prices per gallon here and worldwide (since everyone in the world will reap the benefits of ANWR and coastal drilling). 

The problem with such a protectionist law?   Many things, but mostly:

(1)  Assuming the law is constitutional (which is questionable), the mega oil companies will NEVER go for it.  They’re going to spend billions drilling in these places, and they aren’t allowed to sell their product to the highest bidder?  More likely, they’ll just say, "Oh, well, fuck it then.  We’re gonna lose money on this deal if we can’t sell it internationally."

(2)  Now, if we DID drill and keep it all at home, we would still have to import foreign oil.  Right now, 65% of our oil is imported.  Assuming ANWR and coastal drilling is successful, we’ll still have to import, at best, something in the neighborhood of 60%.  And how will OPEC respond to a protectionist law like that?  Quite likely, they’ll do what they did in the 1970’s, by starting an embargo of their own.  So even though we’ll need 60% of their oil instead of 65%, it will be harder to get that 60%.  Result?  Our prices will actually end up higher as a result than if we had never drilled at all. 

Okay, I hear you cry.  So what’s the solution?

Answer: in the short term, none. In the long term, we have to ween ourselves off of gas dependency.  Not just foreign oil/gas, but all oil/gas.  Drilling in ANWR and off the coasts simply can’t affect the supply enough to make a difference. 

The only thing we can do to make any realistic impact is decrease demand for gas.  And you can only decrease demand two ways — (1) tax the living fuck out of gas so people won’t/can’t buy it; or (2) move away from a oil/gas-based energy systtem.

The problems with Option 1, I don’t need to tell you.  I’m not talking about a 20 cent increase per gallon, because (I suspect) demand for gas will not go down enough, even if gas is taxed to be $6.00 per gallon.  In order to make a REAL difference on demand, gas probably has to be in the area of $10.00 per gallon.  Maybe then people will behave differently in their driving and usage habits.

Yeah, I’m not wild about Option 1 either.

PriusdiagramSo that leaves us with Option 2.  The downside to that?  It’s going to take time. 

But I look at Option 2 this way.  We put a man on the moon in less than ten years.  When Kennedy proposed doing it in 1960, the materials and technology to put a man on the moon hadn’t been invented yet.  Yet, less than ten years later, there was good ol’ Neil planting the flag on the Sea of Tranquilty.  If a President were to annouce a serious national effort to develop new (and hopefully clean) technology for running our cars — a national effort along the lines of the Manhatten Project or the NASA Mission to the Moon, that announcement alone would affect the oil and gas commodity markets, and bring some price relief as soon as it was announced.  And then of course, when we actually DO ween ourselves off of gas and oil, we won’t give a shit about what the prices are.

Sound reasonable to you?

Now if we can only find a President who will get all Kennedy-esque about this issue.  I don’t know if that’s Obama, but it definitely ain’t McCain.

Necrophilia In Wisconsin

Ken AshfordCourts/Law, Crime, Sex ScandalsLeave a Comment

48d56e1241e24251a47ed46b968120fbh_2

Hi, guys.  It’s quite obvious, looking at you, why you are unable to have sex with an actual living girl….

And I know, man.  We’ve all been there, especially at the awkward pimply face age.

But, I gotta tell you, digging up girls to have sex with?  So, not cool.

Their intended victim was a 20 year old nursing assistant who was killed in a motorcycle accident.  That’s a tragedy as it is, but the story gets even more twisted….

703203847165A few days after Tennessen’s death, three Wisconsin men spotted her obituary, and obviously found her quite attractive, and decided to dig up Tennessen’s body to have sex with her. Nicholas Grunke ( son of a Methodist minister), his twin brother Alex, and their friend Dustin Radke all plotted this disgusting act.

Police said the three Wisconsin men were carrying shovels, a crowbar, and a box of condoms to the cemetary to dig up the dead body of Laura Tennessen, who had died the week before in the motorcycle wreck.

Nicholas Grunke had viewed her photo in the obituary and asked his brother and friend to aid in helping dig up her corpse so that he could have sexual intercourse with it.

The three guys used shovels to reach her grave, but were not able to pry open the vault. After seeing the abandoned car, police questioned Alex Grunke, who was acting very nervous, and he admitted to police the scheme, and that his cohorts were digging up Tennessen’s coffin.

Now, the reason I write about this, aside from my natural moral outrage, is because of the legal aspects of it.

It seems that Wisconsin (where these events took place) has no law against necrophilia.  So what’s a prosecutor to do?

Well, curious about the legal aspects of this case (which the media only glazed over), I perused the recent opinion (pdf).

The State of Wisconsin charged the young men with (a) attempted theft and (b) attempted third degree sexual assault.  They were convicted of attempted theft (which carries a light penalty), so let’s forget about that.

As to the other more serious charge (attempted third degree sexual assault), the trial court dismissed it, holding that it does not apply when the intended victim is deceased. 

On appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed.  The higher court noted that, under the statute, sexual assault (or attempts thereof) is a crime if the victim does not give consent to sex.  But the statute also says that "consent is not an issue" in certain circumstances.  For example, if the victim is unconscious or mentally impaired or intoxicated, lack of consent by the victim is presumed.  Unfortunately, being dead was not listed as one of those circumstances where lack of consent is presumed. 

Confounding the analysis is another part of the statute which says that the "entire statute" applies regardless of whether the victim is dead or alive at the time of the attempted sexual contact.

A bit confusing?  Yeah, that’s what the Court of Appeals thought.  But they came to the conclusion that the crime of sexual assault — while obviously applicable to assaults and attempted assaults on living victims — can be applied to dead people in only one circumstance: when the victim becomes deceased as the result of the sexual assault.  And that’s not what happened here (Ms. Tennessen was already dead.  And buried).

So the case gets appealed to Wisconsin Superior Court, the highest court of the state.

They got it right.

They said the statute wasn’t ambiguous.  Like the courts below it, the Wisconsin Superior Court said that being dead isn’t one of those circumstances (like being unconscious) where lack of consent is presumed. 

But what does that mean?  Here, the Wisconsin Superior Court differed from the lower courts.  Since the exception doesn’t apply and we can’t presume lack of consent automatically, all that means is that the State has to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the victim didn’t give consent.  In this particular situation, where the victim couldn’t have given consent because she’s, well, several weeks dead, the State has a pretty easy job of proving "lack of consent".  But just because something is easy to prove, doesn’t make the statute ambiguous.

Interestingly, two justices dissented.  They just thought that the legislature, when it drafted the statute, didn’t intend it to cover necrophilia.

(Side note:  since this case came down the pike, Wisconsin now has a specific necrophilia statute.  But it can’t be applied retroactively, since that would be unconstitutional.)

Latest Buzz On Movie Musicals

Ken AshfordTheatreLeave a Comment

Wicked, Nine, remake of Jesus Christ Superstar…

Marc Platt has extended his contract with Universal Pictures for five years, according to Variety.

Marc Platt Productions currently has several projects of interest to theatre plans in the works, including a film version of the international hit Wicked, a remake of the 1973 Andrew Lloyd Webber-Tim Rice film "Jesus Christ Superstar" and a new motion picture about the life of the late composer George Gershwin.

Universal Pictures production president Donna Langley told the industry paper, "Our goal now is absolutely to make the Wicked film, but much like Judy Craymer wouldn’t give up screen rights to Mamma Mia! until the stage show had reached its pinnacle, Marc and Stephen Schwartz are very mindful of the right timing. But we’re dying to do it."

Platt told Variety that he and Wicked co-producer David Stone are currently in "early movie talks" with the studio. Winnie Holzman, who penned the Tony-nominated book for Wicked, will write the film’s screenplay. No casting has been mentioned.

Platt is also currently in discussions with several filmmakers for a remake of "Jesus Christ Superstar," the film based on the Lloyd Webber-Rice musical of the same name. Norman Jewison directed the original 1973 rock opera film.

Also on Platt’s plate: the Rob Marshall-directed "Nine" for the Weinstein Company and the aforementioned biographical film "Gershwin" penned by Doug Wright. The latter, which Platt will create with Michael Feinstein, revolves around "Gershwin’s life during the formative stages of Porgy and Bess," according to Variety.

I think it’s safe to say we’re living in the second golden age of the movie musical.

Inflation, Recession, Energy and Ecology Woes, Dogs Mating With Cats….

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & Deficit, Energy and ConservationLeave a Comment

Inflation grows at fastest pace in 27 years

Over the past 12 months, wholesale prices are up 9.2%, the largest year-over-year surge since June 1981.  Gas and food prices are to blame, since "core inflation", the economic indicator which excludes energy and food, was better behaved in June, rising by just 0.2%. 

The main culprit is gas, I would think, as the cost of transporting raw materials to manufacturers is more expensive, and then there’s the added expense of transporting finished consumer goods from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer.  It all makes things more costly.

So we’ve got inflation and recession.

The unemployment rate is holding steady at 5.5% which is okay, BUT….

When we had high inflation and recession back in June 1981, the unemployment rate shot up a couple of years later (it tends to lag behind….)Lns14000000_31250_1216135604718_3 Also, the dollar his a new low against the Euro today.

And then there’s that whole Fannie Mae bailout, which sounds like a flood occured in rural Alabama, but its not.

Dow down 100 so far today at all this economic news.  [UPDATE:  Okay, it resurged early this afternoon, but now it’s going down again…]

Oh, and getting back to gas, here’s an interesting trend.  With the rise in gas prices, state and local governments can’t afford — wait for it — public transportation, so many of them are scaling back.  Just the thing you need in a time of global warming and high gas prices — less public transportation.

I’m not an economist, so I’ll just use the layman’s terms for what this all portends:  "shitstorm".  [UPDATE:  Hmmm.  Bush said the same thing today, but with a different twist…

"I think the system is basically sound, I truly do. … I’m not an economist, but I do believe we’re growing. I’m an optimist. I believe there’s a lot of positive things for the economy."
–Bush as his sales pitch today

Heh.]

UPDATE:  Have no fear, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS HERE!

"It’s been a difficult time for American families." Bush said at a press conference.

He noticed!  He noticed!

His plans?  Well, to bail out Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac by having the federal government buy some of the sagging stock.  (While this may be a good idea, one wonders whatever happened to the conservative adage of "let the market take care of itself".  Hmmmm?).  Of course, just Bush saying that has caused those stocks to plummet today.

But turning to energy….

He wants to drill for oil in ANWR.  This is, of course, silly.  Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States.  Which means that when we get the oil, which won’t start happening until 2018, it’s going to be too little, too late.  As the Wall Street Journal says:

At current prices even the high-end estimate would trim just about 1% from the cost of a barrel of oil, and even that reduction can’t be expected for almost 20 years.

Then there’s the notion of lifting the ban on drilling for oil off our nation’s coastline.  We do this already, but there’s been a ban on doing it more.  Probably because people don’t like this:

Oildrillingxtoppermedium_2

Happy vacationing, America.

Hmmm.  Oil rigs off the Florida/Louisiana/Georgia/Carolina coast.  Seems to me that those places tend to get hit by — oh, what do you call those things — hurricanes?  By the way, don’t buy the myth that Katrina and Rita didnt cause oil spills off of Louisiana.  It happened (video).

In fact, the clear satellite evidence of major spills was borne out by final reports. In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) published their offshore damage assessment: “113 platforms totally destroyed, and 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10″ or larger diameter.”

Unsurprisingly, this devastation caused significant spillage, according to the official report prepared for the MMS by a Norwegian firm:

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000 Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a “major spill.” [MMS, 5/1/06]

The Exxon Valdez disaster spilled 10.8 million gallons, so this oil spill was very very large.  (One reason it didn’t get the media notice was that it didn’t all happen in one place, so the damage was diffused).

And, ecology aside, the problem with drilling of the coastlines of America has some of the same shortcomings as ANWR drilling.  What is potentially hypothetically there in terms recoverable oil and case is but a mere pittance of the U.S. oil reserves and a drop in the barrel (no pun intended) when compared to the worldwide oil market.  In other words, not enough to make a significant difference in energy prices, and — once again — whatever impact it will make will be years away. [UPDATE:  Bush admits at a press conference today that there won’t be oil from offshore drilling for a while, but says that drilling there will "change the psychology".  Video here.  Uh, no, it won’t change the psychology.  An actual significant change at the gas pump — now — will change it.]

And finally, Bush is touting the whole "rape the pristine western lands for shale" thing again.  Problem with that is, we don’t yet know how to turn shale into oil, and even if figure it out (which we’ve been trying to do since 1908, it’s going to be a bloody expensive R&D process.  And the cost of all that will be passed on to the consumer.

So again, no energy savings…. just a boondoggle to the oil and gas industries.

God, I’m depressed.

FUN FLASHBACK:  From CNN, 2 months after Bush took office in 2000:

Gas prices surging, but still below record levels

WASHINGTON — Gas prices have surged in the past 12 months, experiencing their biggest dollar increase in the past 30 years, according to a survey conducted for AAA.

Self-serve regular, unleaded gasoline averaged $1.54 per gallon nationwide, according to AAA’s March Fuel Gauge Report released Tuesday.

Those were the days, my friend…

There’s Such A Thing As Casting Too Wide A Net

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

1,000,000?  Seriously?

The "terrorist" watch list now has more than one million names. Do you feel safer now?

Since February we’ve been tracking the size of our government’s list of ostensible terrorist suspects, which according to the government’s own report (pdf) has been rising at a rate of 20,000 per month.

Okay.  I know we live in a dangerous world, but there is no way in hell that there are 1,000,000 terrorists out there, unless you take an extremely broooooad view of what the word "terrorist" means.

Think of the terrible overbloated bureaucracy that must be behind this list.  The manpower and money that must have gone into making this list, and checking out whether these people really are terrorists must be absurdly enormous.  And it probably gives comfort to the real terrorists, knowing that they are now needles in the proverbial haystack.

There’s got to be a lot of false positives in there.  Just ask Akif Rahman, an American citizen who has been repeatedly detained, shackled, separated from his family, and interrogated at the U.S.-Canada border when traveling for his business.

What is even more troubling is that more than one million people are affected by this.  Take, for example, Robert Johnson.  Who is "Robert Johnson"?  Doesn’t matter.  ALL of the "Robert Johnson"s are inconvenienced (detained at the airport, etc.) because that’s one of the names on the terrorist list.

Seriously, can’t we take some of these names off relatively quickly?  Does Jim Robinson — a former assistant attorney general for the Civil Division at the Justice Department, who flies frequently and is often delayed for hours despite possessing a governmental security clearance — really need to be on this list?

Courtesy of the ACLU, here’s some of the people on the watch list.  Now, I realize people like you and me aren’t as terrorist-savvy as the brainiacs working in Homeland Security, but don’t you think some of these people on the watchlist can be, you know, NOT be there?

Nelson Mandela, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and a household name all over the world, nonetheless is listed on the U.S. watchlist and needs special permission to enter the United States.

Robert Johnson – 60 Minutes interviewed 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom reported being pulled aside and interrogated, sometimes for hours, nearly every time they go to the airport.

Alexandra Hay, a college student with a double major in French and English at Middlebury College in Vermont in 2004, when she joined an ACLU lawsuit due to problems she was having with the airline watch list.

Sarosh Syed, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan working for the ACLU of Washington in Seattle also had problems flying. (Syed was also a plaintiff in the ACLU suit in 2004.)

9/11 Hijackers. While certainly these were individuals we all wish had been watched out for, they are, in fact, dead. Yet, the names of 14 of the 19 hijackers from 9/11 were on a copy of the list obtained by 60 Minutes . More evidence that the list is poorly maintained and full of junk names that will only serve to ensnare the innocent.

Evo Morales, president of Bolivia. Name found on list obtained by 60 Minutes .

Saddam Hussein. Although he was imprisoned in Baghdad and in U.S. custody at the time, his name was also found in the database obtained by 60 Minutes. Again, this accomplishes nothing except ensnaring the innocent, diluting the list, and wasting the time of security workers.

Gary Smith. Another name that is extremely common in the United States, found on the no-fly list by 60 Minutes.

John Williams. Yet another common name found on the airline watch list by 60 Minutes.

U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (D, Mass.) After repeated delays at airport security, the senator had trouble getting removed from the airline watch list despite calls to Homeland Security and eventually a personal conversation with the Secretary of DHS.

Representative John Lewis (D, Georgia). Being a hero of the Civil Rights Movement isn’t enough to keep off the aviation watch lists, apparently.

Akif Rahman, founder of a computer consulting company from suburban Chicago, was detained and questioned for more than two hours by U.S. customs officials on four separate occasions when crossing the Canadian border. On one occasion he was held for 5 ½ hours, shackled to a chair, and physically searched. He was also separated from his wife and children (who were forced to wait in a small dirty public area without food or telephones). A U.S. citizen born in Springfield Illinois, Rahman is being represented by the ACLU of Illinois in a lawsuit over this treatment.

Marine Staff Sgt. Daniel Brown was blocked from flying while on his way home from an 8-month deployment in Iraq. He was listed as a suspected terrorist due to a previous incident in which gunpowder was detected on his boots, most likely a residue of a previous tour in Iraq.

Asif Iqbal, a Rochester, NY, management consultant and University of Texas graduate who flies weekly to Syracuse for business, has been weekly detained and interrogated by local law enforcement because his name is shared by a former Guantánamo detainee (who was himself released from the extrajudicial detainment, presumably because of lack of evidence of terror involvement).

James Moore, author of a book critical of the Bush Administration, Bush’s Brain ; problems flying.

Catherine ("Cat") Stevens, wife of Senator Ted Stevens (R, Alaska). Problems flying.  (NOTE:  This may sound bizarre that she is on the terrorist watch list, but I think a clue is provided in the entry below….)

Yusuf Islam, a singer and pop star formerly known as Cat Stevens. Author of song "Peace Train." His flight from London was diverted and forced to land in Maine once the government realized he was aboard, and he was barred from entering United States.

Major General Vernon Lewis (Ret.); a recipient of the Army’s highest medal for service, the Distinguished Service Medal who served in the Korean and Vietnam wars, Lewis had problems flying.

Captain Robert Campbell, US Navy-retired, Comercial Airline pilot of 22 years; problems flying.

David Nelson. Attorney David C. Nelson (right) is one of many men named David Nelson around the U.S. who have been caught up on the list, including a former star of the television show "Ozzie and Harriet." (Nelson was also a plaintiff in the ACLU suit in 2004).

John William Anderson, age 6; problems flying.

Among those caught up by the no-fly list are many infants and small children.

Rep. Don Young, (R, AK); problems flying.

Sister Glenn Anne McPhee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ secretary for education. Sister McPhee sought redress and removal from the watch list for nine months in 2004 and 2005 and it wasn’t until she was able to elicit help from White House connections (Karl Rove) that DHS addressed her problem.

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, D-CA; problems flying.

Michelle Green, Master Sergeant, U.S. Air Force . (Green was also a plaintiff in the ACLU suit in 2004.)

Kid Rock Rocks

Ken AshfordYoutubeLeave a Comment

If you’re over 30 and never thought you would ever like a Kid Rock song, treat yourself to this:

Never realized that the riffs for "Werewolves of London" and "Sweet Home Alabama" were so similar…

Since When Is Ignorance A Virtue?

Ken AshfordEducation, Election 2008, Foreign Affairs, Immigration and XenophobiaLeave a Comment

So here’s the latest scandal rocking the Obama campaign….

Last week, Obama said this:

Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup." Right?

Obama was attacked for his statements by right wing radio talk shows and conservative bloggers. But in many cases he was not quoted correctly. For example, the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC took aim by claiming that "Barack Obama has stepped on a political land mine by stating that Americans should be forced to learn Spanish."

That is not what Obama said, of course. But for the conservatives, truth doesn’t matter.

Commentary from the right went something like this:

Note that Obama isn’t merely saying, "learning foreign languages is swell," or, "those who speak a second language deserve a pat on the back." He’s saying that monolingualism or English-only is an insufficient condition for American citizens.

This is a very dramatic change from the position of American leaders for most of our history. It used to be, if you spoke a language besides English, a thriving life outside of immigrant enclaves would require effort to speak the mother tongue. American culture as a whole said to the immigrant, "You have to get with the program." Now, Obama is pointing to Americans who speak only English and saying, "Now you have to get with the program."

And soon came the inevitable "gotcha" game where it was revealed that Obama hmself isn’t fluent in a language other than English!!!  Gee, but I thought Barrack Hussein Obama was a Muslim who was reared in medrassas.

Of course, responding to the (ridiculous) criticism, Obama answered smartly:

While the Obama campaign says that Obama speaks a little bit of Indonesian, Obama himself admits that he isn’t bilingual.

“I know because I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!” he said.

Indeed.  That’s the kind of candidate he is.  He recognizes the flaws in him that come about from an inadequate education system.

What the hell is going on?  Is being uneducated supposed to be a virtue for this culture all of a sudden?  What Digby said:

There was a time when Obama’s comment was considered completely mainstream. It’s true that Americans have never learned new languages easily, but they respected the idea that kids should learn as much as possible so they could better themselves. Clearly Obama didn’t get the memo that we have embraced cretinism and that all knowledge is suspect.

Ironically, this mini-brouhaha happened just as the military was complaining:

Every service member needs some minimum foreign language skills before deploying — but that capability could require an extensive change in language and cultural training that would have to start long before they enter the military, a House subcommittee was told Wednesday.

The House Armed Services oversight and investigations subcommittee, which has been looking at military programs for current and future operations, is now focused on language and cultural awareness training.

The Defense Department has been working for years to expand language capabilities, both by training people already in the service and recruiting people who are proficient in another language.

Bilingualism also helps American businesses compete in a global market.

It makes perfect sense, to anyone with a brain.  But no…… xenophobia rules some segments of society.  If it’s fer-in, it ain’t no good.

I’ll leave you with the sentiments expressed at Sadly No:

Not to get all elitist or nothing, but our culture is fucking stupid. The fact that presidential campaigns gain advantage from attacking their opponents for sounding too smart is one of the most astounding traits of modern American politics. Maybe the Democrats should just nominate Larry the Cable Guy next time to avoid these sorts of controversies in the future.

Indeed.

The Best Movie Endings

Ken AshfordPopular Culture2 Comments

The London Times lists the Top 20 Best Movie Endings (click here for more details, but warning — SPOILER ALERTS abound).

Before you read on, keep in mind these aren’t necessarily all surprise movie endings a la "The Sixth Sense" and "The Usual Suspects".  They are, however, movie endings that are, for one reason or another, memorable.

Planetofapes20. Se7en
David Fincher, 1995

19. The Blair Witch Project
Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez, 1999

18. Memento
Christopher Nolan, 2000

17. Planet of the Apes
Franklin J Schaffner, 1968

16. The Shawshank Redemption
Frank Darabont, 1994

15. Gone With the Wind
Victor Fleming, 1939

14. Doctor Strangelove
Stanley Kubrick, 1964

Thelmalouisemustang13. Les Diaboliques
Henri-Georges Clouzot, 1955

12. The Wizard of Oz
Victor Fleming, 1939

11. Thelma & Louise
Ridley Scott, 1991

10. The Sixth Sense
M. Night Shyamalan, 1999

9. The Usual Suspects
Bryan Singer, 1995

8. The Italian Job
Peter Collison, 1969

7. Some Like It Hot
Billy Wilder, 1959

6. Breakfast At Tiffany’sCanontest34
Blake Edwards, 1961

5. Chinatown
Roman Polanski, 1974

4. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
Steven Spielberg, 1982

3. Casablanca
Michael Curtiz, 1942

2. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
George Roy Hill, 1969

1. Carrie
Brian De Palma, 1976

The_end_small_2_2

That Was Then….

Ken AshfordHistory, RaceLeave a Comment

WorldNutDaily informs us:

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

The book is by David Barton, who is, shall we say, not the most reliable of historians.

But on this particular thesis, Barton is right — a lot of racism from decates ago came from Republicans.  But that was then, as Matt Yglesius explains:

Decades ago, the Democratic Party was, among other things, the political home of white supremacy in the United States. In the 1960s, the party’s leadership decisively broke with that record. At around the same time, part of the rise of the conservative movement inside the Republican Party was the growing prominence of folks like Barry Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act and who found in his 1964 campaign that the main electoral constituency for his brand of conservatism was . . . white supremacists. Other white supremacist politicians (some of whom, unlike Goldwater, would forever remain unrepentant) like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms moved into the GOP column. And of course while explicit advocacy of segregation has long since vanished from the top ranks of the Republican Party, major conservative leaders have been heard in recent years issuing paens to the work of Thurmond and Helms, with key legislative leaders specifically regretting that Thurmond’s 1948 white supremacist presidential campaign failed, and pointing to Helms as exemplifying what conservatism is all about.

But, yes, decades ago things were different.

Indeed, they were.  In the 1960’s, Kennedy and Johnson moved on civil rights.  And southern racist politicians moved from the Democratic Party to the GOP:

It’s about the political choices Republicans made in the 1960’s to ”go hunting where the ducks are” — code language for winning over white segregationists who abandoned the Democratic Party in the South. It’s about continuing to benefit from racial prejudice through subtle and not-so-subtle sound bites that play to the Republican Party’s far-right base. It’s about the choice today to deny that the party is as much the party of Thurmond as it is the party of Lincoln.

Unforuntately, that kind of, well, truth is lost on certain people who read WND, and go "a-HA!  Democrats are racist!  So now I can vote against Obama with a clear conscience!"

It’s Friday

Ken AshfordPersonalLeave a Comment

I got nothing….

UPDATE:  Okay, I got something.

A Flickr user filming the heavy rain gets hit by lightning.  Happened a few days ago:

She writes: "From what i understand, it went through my left hand holding the camera, crossed my back and exited out of my right hand holding onto the metal railing. No entry or exit wounds, just a really good zap!"