Theme by nostrich.
Text
I don’t understand Obama’s energy policy. What he says is that he is interested in getting us off of oil and other fossil fuels (though his support of “clean coal” somewhat belies this), but he doesn’t take what I consider appropriate steps toward this goal.
There is no question that we must continue to use fossil fuels as we make a transition to renewable sources of energy, but the move toward renewable sources seems almost as stilted under this president as under GWB.
We really need to replace two major fuels: oil, which we use as our main transportation energy source, and coal, which we use as our main electrical generation source. Of the two, oil makes the most strategic sense to abandon first, if possible, as a vast majority of our supply comes from regions of the world that don’t like us much. After the gulf oil spill that has been happening, it seems to make the most environmental sense to abandon too. While coal will continue to add to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, that can theoretically be contained. Oil, on the other hand, seems to be dirty and dangerous from start to finish.
We could eliminate a large portion of our oil usage by transitioning to electric vehicles for short-run transport. However, as that electricity still has to be generated somehow, this option would increase our reliance on coal. However, I have a simple solution which seems like it would kill several birds with one stone that I will present today which I wish the administration would consider. That solution is to encourage solar collector installation on homes and businesses.
Currently, much solar research is geared toward municipal solar generation, that is, large-scale solar collection efforts which are meant to be owned by utilities or municipalities and which continue with the them of centralized generation coupled with a fairly complicated distribution grid (the power grid). However, I think there is a better way. Why not decentralize generation? Making solar affordable at the individual level would fix several of our problems at once, and could be done by shifting policy in one instance and passing one federal statute.
A. Take some of the unspent stimulus money and provide large incentives for small-scale end users to install solar collection systems in their homes and businesses. I am thinking, here, of creating a law that would give a tax refund of 50% to anyone who wants to install solar collectors on their home or business. A simple refund such as this would potentially do three things:
B. Pass a federal law requiring energy companies to buy excess solar generation from individual producers. This would make it much more likely that people putting solar systems on their homes would tie those systems to the electrical grid rather than building stand-alone systems, as excess generation could be sold to the electric company either for cash or to offset energy bills in times when solar generation fluctuates due to weather. At the same time, the overall strain on our existing power grid would be vastly reduced, as large portions of generation would happen locally (at the individual home or business using that power). Our current electrical grid is in major need of overhaul. This would buy us time and at the same time reduce the scope of the overhaul required. Some states currently require this. I am proposing making the requirement at the federal level so all residents of all states benefit.
And that’s pretty much it. Now, I am not an economist, and I am sure that there are potential pitfalls with this plan. It is also very likely to be heavily opposed by the current energy producers in the U.S. However, with just two small changes we could stimulate the economy in its weakest sector, put off a huge cost that is currently looming in our future (the fixing of our electrical grid), make a radical shift in our energy policy, encourage market-driven solutions to solar generation, potentially lower our dependence on foreign oil, which is great strategically, and reduce the power of some of the strongest lobbies in the US, thus putting more power back into the hands of the voters rather than large corporations. We could do all this and that’s before we consider that we would be making steps towards vastly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and potentially lowering energy costs for all Americans.
Now someone tell me: What’s wrong with this plan?
Text
For years many have agreed that the way to fix the U.S. government is to take the money out of politics. Many have tried and failed to accomplish this. McCain-Feingold attempted a fix that was quickly defeated by the exploitation of the 527 loophole which arguably exacerbated the problem by forcing the money into areas that were less regulated rather than more, as the 527s were not directly tied to the candidates that they either supported or attacked (remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?).
This exploit will be even worse in the future since the Supreme Court narrowly decided a few months ago that money is speech and that corporations should have the same rights as people; setting the stage corporations to engage in a no-limit campaign finance war in future elections. That vote was a “party-line” split in the Supreme Court, by the way, with the conservatives on the court voting in favor of corporations and the liberals voting against. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Tea-bagggers.
America has tried and failed to “take the money out of politics.” In the current climate, even enforced publicly funded elections would not work, as the loopholes now existent would allow money to be spent in earnest by any interested party, except that they would have no tie to the actual candidates running for office, and so are even less accountable. This is not a situation in which the average American voter’s voice will be heard, but one in which corporate loudspeakers will prevail.
So how do we fix the basic problem that all of us, “conservatives” and “liberals” alike (plus all those in-between) agree that we have; to wit, that money, not votes, is what is counted in our elections and that this results in broken government? Remember, McCain-Feingold was bi-partisan.
The conservative viewpoint is that government can never work properly and so breaking it more thoroughly of its power is the best path. In my mind, this will only serve to give corporate interests more power as the line between rich and poor grows and the common people have even less voice.
The liberal viewpoint tends toward more regulation of corporations, but then gives away the store to other large and well-funded interests like Unions, who, while necessary, are often the holders of far too much political power. Both parties pander to the powerful and rich members of their base.
For a long time, I thought that we needed to move to publicly funded elections only, giving candidates a cap of what they could spend and letting votes be cast on their viewpoints rather than on their rhetoric, but I have since become so cynical as to believe that the money cannot effectively be removed from politics, in part because of the freedoms we hold so dear. So how does one solve this basic problem?
Here is my solution: If you can’t take the money out of politics, another option might be to remove anything from being bought by that money. Of the major parts of government: legislative, judicial, and executive, there are only certain ways one can fix the problem without major constitutional overhaul, of which I am wary and which is, in practice, approaching impossible, as you are asking the bodies to castrate themselves - something they are not likely to be willing to do.
The judicial, in my mind, mostly works. While both sides may complain about “legislation from the bench” (and make no mistake - the supreme court decision mentioned above is nothing short of that, and it was legislation passed by the conservative wing of the court), the fact is that our judicial system, though it has its faults, largely works pretty well when compared with alternatives around the world.
The presidency seems to be the most powerful position, but only because all the power is vested in one person. The veto is almost never used (and I strongly oppose line-item veto, even though I understand the argument given by its proponents), and even though the president proposes things like budgets, his real power is merely that of the bully-pulpit; provided that the other two branches are willing to keep the executive in check.
That leaves us with the legislative body, which, frankly, seems to be the biggest problem. For the past few decades the legislative branch has seemed paralyzed when it comes to actually doing an effective job. Let me make clear, if it is not clear from my previous posts: while I disagree with much policy proposed by the Democratic party, I am a Democrat in the most fundamental aspect of the party platform in that I believe in a strong central government with the states holding less, but significant power.
For what a Republican ideal looks like (strong state governments and a federal government with limited but significant powers) check out the EU. That’s what the Republican ideal looks like. Ironic, isn’t it? The fact is that the states alone, even acting in the way that some of the founders may have envisioned it, don’t have the power to make the type of country that most of us want - that is, a major player on the world stage able to greatly affect our own destiny (again ironic, as it is the Republicans who tend to be more hawkish and aggressive in terms of foreign policy). No, I am favor of a strong central government, because I believe it is that which works best.
So I think the legislative body should remain powerful. However, lately they have been ineffectual and this is mostly the fault of the Senate. The House, while zany, actually seems to better represent the “will of the people.” For one, it is a more accurate representation of the populace, being chosen as a true proportional representation of the citizenry, rather than being weighted for state by state power. For another, compared to the Senate, the House is the wild west. They have far fewer rules and parliamentary procedures. Bills are far more easily passed. In general, they tend to get more stuff done. This may or may not be something in which you are in favor, given your political bent, but the House gives more power to the states and, right or wrong, seems more capable of actually governing.
However, unlike many Democratic colleagues of mine, I actually believe that the House should be kept in check. They should be held back, a bit, but the more stately (or so-called) Senate. The Senate, which is a much more Republican body, in that it gives each state equal power, regardless of that state’s size. The Senate, steeped in tradition and completely bizarre and enigmatic procedure which is able, with the voice of one Senator, to completely halt the progress of virtually any piece of legislation which comes before it. It is the Senate which causes progress to grind to a halt.
Because of this, many of my more liberal friends think that it should just be done away with. That the Senate plays the House of Lords to the Congress’s House of Commons and is therefore un-American. I disagree. I think that the original stated purpose of the Senate, to act as a check on the House’s tendency to pass legislation a little too fast, is actually something we need. The problem is that the Senate, thanks to the accumulation of many gradual procedural rules over many decades has become so ponderous and slow that it is now virtually possible for one Senator to hold the entire Senate hostage, even if his party holds far less than a majority in that body.
This, combined with the trappings of power a Senator enjoys, means that it is Senators whom corporations should buy if they want to control legislation. Individual Senators, while less powerful than the president, now each hold a great imbalance of power to gum up the works of not only progress, but, as we have seen in the recent fiscal crisis, even the ability to react to major threats to our country’s welfare. The cheapest thing you can do if you want to change legislation in your favor is to buy a Senator of two. At least, that’s my argument.
So how do we fix that if we can’t take the money used to buy them out of politics? The answer, is to take away the thing being bought, and the way to do that is going to seem disingenuous.
My plan is threefold, but I believe it has a chance of working precisely because it gives Senators enough of what they likely want in order for them to be able to swallow the somewhat bitter pill of legislation required to fix the problem. If you are going to get the horse to castrate himself, then you had better give him a damn good reason to do it.
Fixing the Senate in three simple steps:
Step 1: Raise the hell out of their salaries and give them a big enough retirement package to never have to work again once they quit. I know this goes against everything American want, but stay with me for a minute. Part of the reason Senators can be bought is because they see a bigger piece of cheese waiting for them at the end of their public career when they go into private industry, either working for a lobbying group or directly for industry itself.
If Senators make enough money that material things cease to be of concern, then they become far less bribe-able. If they don’t need to find a job once they are done as a Senator, then they don’t have to pander to the people for whom they want to work when they get done. Trust me, raising their salaries a great deal (let’s say at least fourfold to start) and paying them a huge pension would be pennies compared to what we are losing now because of the Senate’s being in the pockets of lobbyists. Besides that, it is necessary in light of Step 2.
Step 2: Require that Senators, once they have held public office, may never work for private industry again. This seems harsh, but it is necessary to close the revolving door between industry and public office. I am not saying that they must retire forever. On the contrary, they are welcome to run for other office or, preferably, run non-profit organizations such as those often run by ex-presidents to pursue philanthropic goals.
What they may not do is work for, directly or indirectly, the private sector. Nor may they attempt to directly affect future legislation (read: lobbying) that comes after their term. This idea needs fleshing out, but what I aim for would take them out of circulation once their term in the Senate is done.
Step 3: (And this one does require a constitutional change): Change the constitution regarding the Senate in the following manner: From now on, Senators may be elected to one and only on term lasting ten years. One fifth of the Senate will overturn every two years.
This is the final (and critical) piece of the plan, because Senators most often seek money not directly for personal gain (though they do get some personal gain from this activity) but for re-election campaigns. It is the promises they make in order to get re-elected that result in the selling of America to corporate interests. It is constant campaigning for the next election cycle that keeps them out of their office instead of in Washington doing their jobs. It is the ability to change a campaign that gives corporate (and I include in this term any large interested and fiscally powerful body) interests the most power over a Senator.
Ten years is plenty of time for a person to gain the knowledge necessary to maneuver around Washington and get things done. Ten years might seem too long, but keep in mind that the current term for a U.S. Senator is six years. If they get re-elected just once, then they will serve twelve. Ten years is, in my estimation, just the right amount of time. Presidents can only serve for eight. Supreme Court Justices serve for life. Leave the house as it is, but limit the Senate in this way.
Limiting them to one term means that, once elected, any Senator is free, for the next ten years, to think only of his or her constituents. Limiting them to one term means they need never think about re-election. Combined with the fiscal rewards I proposed in Step 1 for being a Senator, it would mean that elected Senators would be free to vote their consciences rather than those of their contributors. Lastly, it’s far more palatable (to Senators at least) than the other idea a friend and I came up with: allowing constituents to force Senate members to fight each other to the death.
Seriously, though, term limits are needed. Ted Kennedy should never have served forty years. Even though I may like him and what he stood for, that’s just too big of a power base to amass. If given anything other than a one term limit, then Senators would never serve the people for more than half of any given time period they we elected them for, as they would always worry about re-election until the last term before they termed out. Six years is not enough time to establish themselves on the hill, and twelve is too many to give to anyone without the ability to recall them. Ten, in my opinion, is just right (though I could be swayed by some other number).
So that’s it. That’s my plan. Republicans like to quote Reagan, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” thinking that this quote means that we should dismantle the government. First of all, people who love this quote completely miss the point that we are the government of the United States. Those people in Washington are just our representatives. So if the government is failing, it is we who are ultimately failing.
Secondly, however, why throw out the baby with the bath water? If those nine words are truly the most terrifying, then how about we fix the damn government (or, at least, the representation thereof) rather than moving to this frankly anarchistic position. I am simply proposing one way to fix it. I hope you, reader, give it serious consideration. And if you don’t like it, do your duty as a citizen and a member of the government: come up with a plan that will work.
Text
I was just watching John King, and he had Mitch McConnell (the Republican Senate minority leader) on his show. King asked McConnell if Republicans would be voting for the amendments to the health care bill, as those amendments would make the bill more fiscally responsible. McConnell said “no,” and he cited, as one of his major reasons, that the Democrats plan proposed a cut in Medicare benefits.
Now here’s where I have a question: If the Republicans are against entitlements, and the Republicans are against socialized medicine, and the Republicans want the government to spend less and become smaller, then how in the hell can the Republicans justify being against lowering a socialized entitlement plan like medicare?
I just don’t get how the party can’t see that this is absolutely nothing short of political pandering that is directly in opposition to the entire rest of the stance that they are taking on this issue. Look, if they want to oppose health care reform, then fine. If they want to call it socialist, then call it socialist. However, don’t then go on to complain because the Democrats are cutting the funding for a health care plan that is just as socialist as the health care plan being proposed. That’s just completely dishonest.
I would really love to hear someone defend this, and I know there are a lot of Republicans out there, so let’s hear it.
Text
Someone commented in the thread on the health care post and I wanted to post the comment and my response here.
Here’s the comment:
“I just don’t want our health care system to become like the Canadian system where there are review boards (some call death panels) that determine whether or not your procedures will be funded by the government. And then when denied, the patient has to travel to the States to get the procedure.
In my opinion, not much will change. Someone will get rich off the changes. I’m just not sure who.
Do you think it is a right or a privilege to have health care?”
Here’s my response:
I don’t really know anything about the review panels to which you are referring in Canada (I am not saying they do or do not exist - I just know nothing of them). I do know that the “death panel” scare that kept coming up in the U.S. debate was about a clause in the bill that simply provided end of life counseling for people who were terminally ill. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
I have doubts that we will see such here, but, even if we do, there are already “death panels” in the U.S. They are otherwise known as “insurance companies,” and their death panels are driven by profit motive - not something I am more comfortable than decisions made by a government. The thing I have never gotten in all of this is that there is already a bureaucratic organization making your health care decisions for you - your insurance company.
However, whereas the U.S. government has at least some vested interest in protecting its citizens (even if it is only so the representatives can garner more votes for them), insurance companies have a dedication only to their stock holders. The U.S. government, in the end, is at least made up of you and me and everybody unlike an insurance company, which is made up of a small number who are not subject to election.
Someone usually gets rich off of the changes, but the insurance companies are getting rich right now (I actually suspect they will continue to do so until a real alternative is offered, such as a public option, but we’ll see how the insurance exchange works out); at least this way there is the possibility that the money will shift.
As to whether I think health care is a right or a privilege: Everything is a privilege until we make a law to make it a right - that’s how our government works. If you are asking about objective reality, I will answer that I don’t think there is one. This is government, and in government we make a decision about what will be a right and what will be a privilege. So far, it has been a privilege. Today I think we took a step towards it being a right.
However, let me answer that question in a slightly different way: What I really think is that, while I am very much in favor of capitalism (I think it is probably the best of the fiscal systems available thus far, though I think that capitalism, in order to work, requires serious regulation), I think that there are certain societal things that corporations should not profit from. We shouldn’t profit from sickness, incarceration, or, really, the military.
Now, this is not to say that ancillary industries should not profit. I think that the builders of a jail should be able to make a normal profit. The makers of weapons should make a normal profit (though when the pentagon clearly does not want a particular weapons system, I almost think they should be able to stop congress from making them buy it). Drug manufacturers should be entitled to a profit, though that industry needs heavier regulation. Individuals such as doctors should be able to make their livings, but I just don’t really like the idea of health insurers and hospitals getting fat off the suffering of the sick.
I fully admit that I haven’t thought this whole thing through, and have not come up with a plan as to how it should work. However, I guess I just don’t like profit-driven health services. I would prefer a society where health care, if not a right, is at least not a cut-throat, profit driven industry.
I hope the whole thing works out. Next, I hope congress passes some really serious regulation on the banks. But that is another story.
Text
I think health care is likely to pass today. After it does, I hope that anyone who was saying that it was going to cause socialism in America will take an honest look at the results (let’s say a couple of years hence) and then really honestly re-evaluate whether or not things are better or worse.
I promise to do the same. However, I suspect things are going to start getting better. I still wish there were a public option, but I guess those poor insurance companies just need protection. We shall see.
Text with 1 note
From now on, whenever someone starts debating whether or not global warming is occurring, I think that both parties should have to explain just what it is and how the science works. I keep hearing people talk about this subject, and both sides will make claims about what scientists believe or how the weather is indicative of the climate or some other crap. If every time a discussion about global warming came up Bill Nye were to come on the TV and explain just what that theory is and how it works, I think this debate would swiftly end.
Here’s the answer in a nutshell:
Plants and animals are made up of 3 principal components: hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. As you may remember from science class, hydrogen and oxygen combine in a 2:1 ratio to form water. Oxygen and carbon combine in a 2:1 ratio to form carbon dioxide.
Plants get the building blocks that they use to build themselves by harvesting water from the soil and the air whenever it is made available by the water cycle. Obviously, however, plants are made from more than just water. They also harvest carbon from the atmosphere, stripping the carbon atom off of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis and using it, along with water, to make a sugar called glucose (that’s 6 carbon atoms, 12 hydrogens, and 6 oxygens). They release the excess oxygen that is left over from the CO2 once they have gotten the carbon. This is why you may have heard that plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen. (This is true only during photosynthesis, by the way - they actually do the reverse during respiration, but that’s another story - let’s leave it that plants, by far, take in more CO2 and release more oxygen than the reverse).
So plants are taking both CO2 and water out of the atmosphere and making sugar out of it, which, in turn, they use to make more plant (remember, plants are made mainly out of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen).
Here’s an interesting thing about CO2 and water vapor: CO2 and water vapor (along with methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and something called chloroflourocarbons) have the odd ability to trap heat in the atmosphere. What happens is this: Light entering the atmosphere from the sun is spread across the entire spectrum, but a large portion of it is relatively high frequency. Air, and, most importantly for this discussion, the gasses mentioned above, is essentially transparent to light - meaning that the light just passes right through it.
However, when the light gets absorbed by stuff on the planet (like rocks, trees, people, dirt, the ocean, etc.) and then re-emitted, it goes through a change in frequency, so that the light that leaves the planet is, by and large, at longer wave lengths than the light that reached the planet in the first place. These longer wavelengths of light are able to interact with the gasses mentioned above, causing the gas molecules to vibrate. Vibration and heat are essentially the same thing, so the more the gas molecules vibrate, the more heat is said to be in the atmosphere.
This means that the more of these gases there are in the atmosphere, the more heat can be captured because the light interacts with the increased number of molecules of the gas that are present and causes more heat to be generated. Remember, most living things on the planet are made mostly of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.
Now here’s the tricky part: Hundreds of millions of years ago, there were lots of plants on the planet, just as there are today. Those plants breathed in all this CO2 in order to make sugar. Much of that sugar was converted into parts of the plant itself. Then, many of those plants ended up dying and getting buried, effectively trapping the carbon, oxygen and hydrogen those plants were made of under ground. Over millions of years, the three elements slowly transformed into the fuels that we use today - coal and oil and natural gas (those three fuels are made up pretty much exclusively of guess what three elements? carbon, oxygen and hydrogen).
This means that way back when the plants were first growing, the planet was probably a lot hotter and more humid than it is today - after all, there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere (remember, the plants took that CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to build more of themselves, and released oxygen as a waste product). Most evidence in the geologic record indicates that temperatures were higher over the planet when the dinosaurs were around, for example.
Now, all that carbon, hydrogen and oxygen were buried for millions of years - we typically use the term “sequestered” to describe this. They were buried, that is, until very recently, when we discovered that we could burn them for fuel, and large companies started digging them up and selling them to the public.
Here’s the thing: plants do photosynthesis by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and using it to make sugar, which they then burn for fuel or use to make more plant. When plants or hydrocarbons (a general term for anything we dig up and burn for fuel, be that oil, natural gas, or coal) are burned, the carbon in the hydrocarbon combines with oxygen to form CO2 and the hydrogen in the hydrocarbon combines with hydrogen to form H2O in the form of water vapor. This process of combining releases heat, which is why we want these things as fuels.
However, the process also releases large amounts of the two biggest greenhouse gases: water vapor and CO2. Remember, the more of these gases there are in the atmosphere, the more heat is generated when light reflects of the planet and interacts with them. These gases had, for millions of years, been buried under ground. In the past century, however, we have been digging them up by the millions of tons and burning them to run our cars and power our electrical grids. This means that we have directly increased (by a VERY large amount) the amount of the two most heat retaining gases in the atmosphere.
That’s what scientists are worried about. That’s what global warming means. It is not something that can be measured by weather (that is, some snow event or even the amount of snow an area might get during a particular winter). Anyone who says so is wrong or lying. However, it is a measure of how much heat is trapped, year by year, in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, and increasing those gases drastically means that the heat retained by the earth will increase dramatically. That means that, given time, the earth will heat up and, eventually, weather patterns will change everywhere.
Now, when I explain this to 10th grade biology students, they say “how can anyone argue that global warming isn’t happening then?” and I reply, “well, most people haven’t heard my lecture.” That’s not meant to be egotistical. It’s just that even though we hear about global warming every day on TV, almost no one ever explains it, and I would bet that most people you hear on TV discussing it don’t understand it (unless you happen to be watching Bill Nye). Once people understand it, it gets sort of hard to dispute.
One last thing: We know from geologic evidence that the polar caps have melted and refrozen many times in the history of the earth. When they melt, the global water level rises about 210 feet. This means that places like Memphis, TN would be under water. Now, I am not saying this would happen right away - in fact, it almost certainly would not. But Manhattan is only about 10 feet above sea level, and most of the world’s population (about 70%) lives less than 30 feet above sea level.
That’s what people are worried about. If temperatures rise too high and just the Greenland ice sheet melts, we could have to move several billion people. That’s kind of a big deal.
Anyway, that’s it. I just wish people knew what they were talking about when they discussed this. I kind of think it would mean we would have a little less of a debate.
Text with 1 note
To whom it may concern:
I continually get mail from the Arkansas Alumni Association. For the most part, this mail involves some sort of request for money, so that I can continue to support the incredible learning institution that is the University of Arkansas.
I understand why you are sending these messages. I know that you want me to contribute further to this great institution of higher learning and that you feel that, as I have such a valuable degree from this school, I should be thankful and show those thanks with further dollars to the U of A’s coffers.
My problem with this situation is this: I hold 2 bachelor’s degrees from the U of A (one of them cum laude) and a minor in addition to a Master’s degree. Despite this, though, the University of Arkansas itself seems to not value those degrees at all. Evidence for this is that I have applied for no less than sixty-two different positions of employment at my Alma mater recently, and have been turned down for every one of them (this despite the fact that I actually have five years experience at the institution, in addition to the no doubt invaluable degrees).
Let’s make a deal: The minute that the University of Arkansas starts seeing my degrees as worth something, most note-ably by, at the very least, granting me some interviews for employment, but, most especially, when they actually offer me employment, then I will start contributing to the Arkansas Alumni Association. Until that happens, please remove me from your mailing list, as you have so far fallen very short of convincing me that my degrees from your university are worth more than the paper on which they are written, mostly as evidenced by your own actions.
Sincerely,
William Chesser
P.S. I am so happy with this letter, I think I’ll send it on to the Democrat-Gazette as a letter to the editor. Thanks for your years of pestering and inspiration.
W.C.
Text
I thought I had posting enabled for anyone who wanted it. It turns out that I did not. It should be working now, so I hope to hear from anyone reading what an idiot I am.
Text
I just watched the last half of the keynote speech made by Sarah Palin to the “Tea Party” event in Nashville. I have to say that I certainly hope she runs for president on the GOP ticket in 2012, as I would love to see the kind of car wreck that would ensue.
It really surprises me that so many people seem swayed by the “folksy wisdom” that she espouses (though completely lacks) after 8 years of the “folksy BS” we endured under Bush. Palin said that people in Washington thought that folks in Tennessee or Alaska were too stupid to understand the big, complicated problems that the country faced. I am not sure Washington thinks this. I am not sure whether the average Joe in Tennessee or Alaska understands things like complex economic policy (though I am quite certain that Joe the Plumber does not). What I am completely certain of is that Sarah Palin does not understand them. I would have loved it if, during her Q/A session at the end, someone would have presented her with a question about Keynesian economic theory. I strongly suspect (and would take bets at 10:1 odds on this) that she has no idea who Keynes even is, much less what he proposed was necessary to fix a failing economy. Palin thinks that the US economy can be fixed in the same way that a family or small business economy can be fixed - by tightening one’s belt and waiting things out.
Listening to her idiocy tonight, I could only think about the wonder of what would happen if the Tea Party got everything it wished for right now: An end to “socialist practices” (goodbye Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and public education). The impeachment of our evil, foreign-born and (let’s whisper it, but not too quietly) Black president (to be replaced with none other than Sarah herself). The immediate shrinkage of the federal government down to the limits envisioned by the conservative half of the founding fathers in 1776 (goodbye federal highways, military, and FDA). Also, let’s let states decide their own fates entirely (goodbye south, who should have been allowed to secede in 1860). Also, while we’re at it: goodbye Alaska, not even purchased and never to be purchased, along with, well, the Louisiana Purchase, California, the West…. Hmmm. What the hell do these people really want, anyway?
Further, why do they call themselves the “Tea Party” anyway. The Boston Tea Party was really about a bunch smugglers being pissed off about paying tariffs (the common lore about taxation without representation notwithstanding). But even if we take the common lore to be fact, can these people honestly claim to be unrepresented? Has someone taken their right to vote from them? I just don’t understand this idiotic movement.
Here’s an idea, Tea Party idiots: Look up something called “the Libertarian Party.” At least they are intellectually honest enough to be consistent and call for the legalization of things like drugs, prostitution and abortion when they claim to want to cripple the federal government. And oh, by the way: they keep their racism hidden; not out in plain sight like some kind of 50s Jim Crow bigot.
Good luck, Sarah. I can honestly say that I /really/ hope to see you debate Obama in 2012. Now that would be a serious you betcha.
Text
If you missed President Obama addressing the House Republicans today, then you just missed one of the most historical events of this century. The President, fulfilling a promise he had made in the State of the Union address, gave a short speech to the house Republicans at a retreat they were holding. This is unusual, but not necessarily unheard of. However, he then did something by which I was totally blown away: He took questions. He took questions from an openly hostile group that were completely unscripted, and, the fact is, he gave the Republicans there a serious drubbing.
Full disclosure, I am a Democrat. Fuller disclosure: I have been more and more irritated with the way Democrats have been doing things and, frankly, for years I have been waiting for someone to start being actually frank and candid with the American people. For about two hours or so, Obama took questions, or, more often, a list of talking points disguised as questions, from an obviously hostile (though quite polite, for the most part) Republican audience. The “questions” were obviously carefully prepared and approved in advance by the Republican leadership (though not by the President). One by one, however, Obama took the talking points apart, addressed each issue, flat out stated where ideas expressed were false or simply politically motivated, and, in short, basically handed the Republicans’ asses to them on a platter. They are surely regretting, at this point, publicly debating a Harvard educated law professor who is also an incredibly gifted speaker.
Obama made several points about problems with politicking on both sides of the aisle, but, as the questions were being presented to him by Republicans, spent most of his time addressing the particular questions and remarks being made and how these points in particular were meant only to gain political advantage and not to actually have an honest discussion.
I am not going to go into the entire speech and question and answer session here, as there would be no purpose in that. You should really watch it for yourself. I am sure it will be up on CNN and a variety of other places. However, I will say that it was completely masterful. It is what he should have been doing this past year and it has really gone a long way to restoring my faith, if not in the Democratic party at large, then at least in this President specifically. If he continues to come out with this kind of message and open public debate (and if the Republicans are brave enough to face him again) then he will be known as a historically significant President not only because he was our nation’s first black man to serve that office, but because he was one of our nation’s best office holders of all time. I truly hope he continues and that he manages to change the tone of Washington as he has claimed to want to do throughout his public service, but has not done very effectively before today.
Page 1 of 2
