This is the territory of the Two Political Junkies, but I wanted to comment on Jack Kelly’s column in today’s Sunday Post Gazette. Kelly expresses the opinion that energy independence is quote unquote a pipe dream, and while I think his motivation for saying it is to skewer liberals, I think this is an issue worth mulling over.
Kelly’s basic point, I think, although he does not explicitly use the word, is about scale. He talks about coal gasification, mass transit, plug in hybrids and the nuclear power plants he thinks we would need to power them, solar (although not wind), conservation (55mph)and also drilling off the coasts and in the ANWR. He says that environmentalists could/should be mollified by an offer of 2,000 acres of some new national park where people could actually visit (he seems to skip over the point of a refuge). And Kelly’s conclusion is that all of this would help us reduce our demand for foreign oil in five to ten years from 60 percent of our consumption down to 25 or 30 percent.
By the way, Kelly has a novel suggestion about where to locate nuclear power plants to avoid the NIMBY problem. He suggests military bases. I think the troops have suffered enough, but Kelly's idea is probably doable. You give up a lot of your rights when you put on the uniform.
He’s probably about right about how much we could reduce our oil use too, maybe. There’s reason to be pessimistic, though. Many thought gas prices would not come down in the late seventies and early eighties and that a period of austerity and deprivation was with us to stay. Then greedy OPEC, getting rich as a collective, fell apart due to that greed, and gas prices plummeted. If demand in the US and the rest of the world falls, and if speculation really is fueling (so to speak) part of current oil prices, prices may fall again. Then the SUV’s will start selling again, and we will start the cycle of consumption again. Eventually we will reach a point where oil will start to run out, and we may have a global depression, complete with mass famine, plague, political upheaval and global war.
But stepping back to Mr. Kelly’s assessment, he glosses over the liberal accusation that new drilling (whether in banned areas or in areas where oil companies apparently hadn’t exercised options they already have) won’t start producing results for five to ten years anyway. I will say, picking up on the speculation theme I mentioned above, since oil is priced on a futures market, permission to drill in the ANWR and off the coasts might have an immediate effect on the price of oil, since traders/speculators would see the increased supply coming.
There is one thing to say about Mr. Kelly’s estimate. I do think it is accurate, what he estimates in a five to ten year period. I think that he should be wrong about eventual energy independence, though. If we started working today on all the things he said, new drilling and new nuclear power plants (which probably also take five to ten years) and also increased use of mass transit, conservation, plug in hybrids, solar yada yada, we would probably reach that 25 percent foreign oil figure in the five to ten he says we would. But there’s no reason we couldn’t go further, and reach a zero foreign oil percent figure ten years after that, if we continued on that pace.
No reason except that we won’t. By then there will be a new President, and even if it is a Democrat, (s)he will have run on a popular “Let’s make America fun again” ticket (or some variation). And that’s assuming we even get that far. Mr. Kelly doesn’t even catch some of the problems facing our national lack of will. Mass transit use is up, but the increased costs to mass transit due to fuel are rising even faster. Of course in Pittsburgh we have a separate problem (driver’s union) and Dan Onorato is no Reagan. The paradox of mass transit is that it gets more riders when gas (diesel) gets more expensive, but that’s when it needs to cut routes because off increased costs. Unless we adopt European style taxes to help fund mass transit (for those who can’t afford a car), we will not make it cheap enough and also it will not be solvent enough to really help us out. Public transportation in the US is hardly private, but it is still not public enough (ie European level of funding).
There is also the effect fuel costs have on everything else that I haven’t mentioned. The majority of our food and basically all of everything else is transported by truck, ship and train (even some by airplane), and so the price of everything is going to increase. We may finally get those raises we never got during the Bush Presidency, when there was massive increases in productivity. Or not, corporations may not want to deprive stockholders of any more than they have to. But look for people to start talking about Victory Gardens again.
If gas prices do not fall, if they in fact continue an upward trend, I think Mr. Kelly’s projections might be accurate. Especially if gas prices continue their previous dramatic ascent (I think they may have plateau’d in the last week or two, though). If gas prices fall, as they did in the mid eighties , we are probably sunk, due to repeat the cycle. The only good news being the “spinner” hub market would not suffer. Though they are probably made in China.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Gas prices some more
There is a still something of a national discussion about who’s to blame for higher oil prices and what to do about them. As far as blame, the discussion keeps shifting between the Chinese and Indians, the oil companies, the oil producing countries and any speculators you might find in the oil futures market. I can see why looking for a culprit would be attractive, because once found we could tell them to stop, and they could give us back George Bush’s America, where the explosive growth of the income of the rich means that we are all doing well (on average). Maybe we will find that speculators drove the price away from the actual cost of getting oil out of the ground and turning it into gas (sometimes estimated now at $75 a barrel, which makes you wonder why we had cars three or thirty years ago). If so, maybe we should give them a medal for forcing us to think about cutting back or buying smaller cars. Or maybe we should acknowledge a truth, that China is supposed to have as many cars as we do in maybe just a couple of years, before passing us, and the market is just adjusting to that fact.
But I want to talk about Dick Cheney’s notion of personal virtue, the other side of the equation, what to do about gas prices. I can’t remember where I read it, but I saw an interesting article about how we really need to concentrate not on the Ed Begley (Jr) wannabes, but rather on the clueless so and so’s who drive alone in their Lincoln Navigators and Ford F350’s at 80 on the highway. If one of them slows down to 65, it will save more gas in percentage and real terms than if I squeeze another two mpg’s out of my Hyundai Accent by coasting instead of accelerating up to a traffic light. If a family switches form a Dodge Durango to a minivan, they will make more of a contribution to reduced demand than if a Birkenstock-wearer switches from a Camry to a Corolla.
Actually, I am guessing that a lot of these Navigator drivers are males, particularly the ones who drive at eighty on the highway. Not to be discriminatory, I am sure there are women who do this too, although why do I thing that they (a) are listening to country music while they are driving eighty and (b) do not have a graduate degree? In any event, these same people who will give up their handguns when it is pried form their cold dead hands (a view blessed by the high court) are not likely to become small SUV or minivan people. But I have a solution. I think these drivers (who are often driving alone) would enjoy a large motorcycle. The motorcycle, even a big one, would at least triple their mileage, and they are quite fun. You don’t have feel like you are in a giant cocoon, instead you have the massive engine right there, between your legs. And if they don’t want to wear a helmet, I say don’t force it. Let them have their freedom.
Not that I take the Darwinian view or anything. Suffice to say, either way problems are solved.
But I want to talk about Dick Cheney’s notion of personal virtue, the other side of the equation, what to do about gas prices. I can’t remember where I read it, but I saw an interesting article about how we really need to concentrate not on the Ed Begley (Jr) wannabes, but rather on the clueless so and so’s who drive alone in their Lincoln Navigators and Ford F350’s at 80 on the highway. If one of them slows down to 65, it will save more gas in percentage and real terms than if I squeeze another two mpg’s out of my Hyundai Accent by coasting instead of accelerating up to a traffic light. If a family switches form a Dodge Durango to a minivan, they will make more of a contribution to reduced demand than if a Birkenstock-wearer switches from a Camry to a Corolla.
Actually, I am guessing that a lot of these Navigator drivers are males, particularly the ones who drive at eighty on the highway. Not to be discriminatory, I am sure there are women who do this too, although why do I thing that they (a) are listening to country music while they are driving eighty and (b) do not have a graduate degree? In any event, these same people who will give up their handguns when it is pried form their cold dead hands (a view blessed by the high court) are not likely to become small SUV or minivan people. But I have a solution. I think these drivers (who are often driving alone) would enjoy a large motorcycle. The motorcycle, even a big one, would at least triple their mileage, and they are quite fun. You don’t have feel like you are in a giant cocoon, instead you have the massive engine right there, between your legs. And if they don’t want to wear a helmet, I say don’t force it. Let them have their freedom.
Not that I take the Darwinian view or anything. Suffice to say, either way problems are solved.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Even China ....
Even China is raising gas prices. Actually, they’re not raising prices above the market price. They are only raising prices closer towards the market prices.
Ok, first all, how come no country is a real capitalist country, not even the communists? China had fixed (and thus subsidized) the price of gas back on November 1st, and kept it there (where-ever there is) ever since. But a funny thing happened, their own energy companies threatened to go bankrupt, their stocks plunging. So China’s newly wealthy class took a beating in their accumulated wealth. And last week China decided to adjust the prices of gas and diesel upwards 18 percent, which for gas means its now the equivalent of $3.58 a gallon. Doesn’t sound too bad compared to here, but an 18 percent jump may mean that the Chinese will drive a bit less. At least no more Sunday drives in the park. And that may mean further downward pressure on demand, possibly causing the price to drop.
By the way, the NYTimes noted that if demands does fall in China, it will lend support to the idea that economists here are advancing. If we tax gas more, much, much more, the core price will very likely fall, as we use less. The less we use, the more that remains for our grand kids ( the great grand kids will have to be on their own, the ungrateful snots).
Ok, first all, how come no country is a real capitalist country, not even the communists? China had fixed (and thus subsidized) the price of gas back on November 1st, and kept it there (where-ever there is) ever since. But a funny thing happened, their own energy companies threatened to go bankrupt, their stocks plunging. So China’s newly wealthy class took a beating in their accumulated wealth. And last week China decided to adjust the prices of gas and diesel upwards 18 percent, which for gas means its now the equivalent of $3.58 a gallon. Doesn’t sound too bad compared to here, but an 18 percent jump may mean that the Chinese will drive a bit less. At least no more Sunday drives in the park. And that may mean further downward pressure on demand, possibly causing the price to drop.
By the way, the NYTimes noted that if demands does fall in China, it will lend support to the idea that economists here are advancing. If we tax gas more, much, much more, the core price will very likely fall, as we use less. The less we use, the more that remains for our grand kids ( the great grand kids will have to be on their own, the ungrateful snots).
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Cover of the Rolling Stone ...
Well, not really. But I did get quoted in the PG’s “Cutting Edge”, which might pass for a form of journalistic notice (in the city of Pittsburgh). Never mind that the column is apparently not linked to anything. Anyway, they noticed my last post, “Gas Prices”, and this is what they said:
“Thank you, Europe
Cognitive Dissonance in Pittsburgh and Beyond (cognitivedissonancepittsburgh.blogspot.com) thinks it's crazy to drill for more oil in the United States because it only would slightly reduce gas prices for a short time just so we could continue to drive SUVs. We could drive prices much lower by reducing demand. How? By living like Europeans, "where they make do with much smaller cars and a lot of trains, buses and bikes. Some say life there is just as good as here, some say maybe even better (with low crime and better schools)."
CDPB also suggests we thank the Europeans for heavily taxing themselves to keep their own gas prices high, which induces them to conserve, which helps keep worldwide prices lower, which saves us money while we drive gaz-guzzlers.”
I only repeat it here to note that they failed to mention that (I think) the US itself should also reduce demand by taxing gas like Europeans. But I am very amused that they did mention what I consider to be a inescapable conclusion: if we can reduce demand by taxing gas, we have to give a nod to the Europeans, who already did reduce demand with their own heavy gas tax. It could be the real reason OPEC collapsed as a cartel in the eighties, thus giving us the low gas prices that allowed us to buy SUV’s and drive them at eighty miles an hour on the highways.
Thank/Fuck you very much, Europe (pardon my French, Frenchies).
“Thank you, Europe
Cognitive Dissonance in Pittsburgh and Beyond (cognitivedissonancepittsburgh.blogspot.com) thinks it's crazy to drill for more oil in the United States because it only would slightly reduce gas prices for a short time just so we could continue to drive SUVs. We could drive prices much lower by reducing demand. How? By living like Europeans, "where they make do with much smaller cars and a lot of trains, buses and bikes. Some say life there is just as good as here, some say maybe even better (with low crime and better schools)."
CDPB also suggests we thank the Europeans for heavily taxing themselves to keep their own gas prices high, which induces them to conserve, which helps keep worldwide prices lower, which saves us money while we drive gaz-guzzlers.”
I only repeat it here to note that they failed to mention that (I think) the US itself should also reduce demand by taxing gas like Europeans. But I am very amused that they did mention what I consider to be a inescapable conclusion: if we can reduce demand by taxing gas, we have to give a nod to the Europeans, who already did reduce demand with their own heavy gas tax. It could be the real reason OPEC collapsed as a cartel in the eighties, thus giving us the low gas prices that allowed us to buy SUV’s and drive them at eighty miles an hour on the highways.
Thank/Fuck you very much, Europe (pardon my French, Frenchies).
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Gas prices
After the initial big rise in the price of gas, at the end of last month, there were some comparisons made between life in the US and life in Europe, where they make do with much smaller cars and a lot of trains, buses and bikes. Some say life there is just as good as here, some say maybe even better (with low crime and better schools). Sometimes people would note that taxes on gas are much higher there, about four bucks more or less.
Now the conversation here has settled on the wisdom or viability of offshore drilling, and drilling in national parks and the ANWR. Never mind the fact that we don’t have additional refining capacity for more oil, or apparently even enough ships equipped to set up the rigs. Or that the oil companies will want to sock us with the initial cost of drilling.
So we have two competing theories of how to bring down the cost of oil, increased supply or decreased demand (the decreased demand is the European solution of high taxes on gas). The increase in supply is straightforward, although some people are predicting it wouldn’t work out that way. The thing is, depleting our domestic supply of oil just so we can continue to drive SUV’s eighty miles an hour on the highway and defer taking steps to address our future … I have no words.
Curbing demand would be difficult. The wealthiest people bought houses the farthest from the cities, bought the largest (and thus the ones that consume the most energy) houses and drive the largest and least efficient vehicles. But they lobby their Representative and/or Senator, and regardless of party, money talks.
Plus a tax on gas of European magnitude, even if it was phased in, would hurt poor people. Even if it was offset by an increased EITC and some kind of tax refund to the elderly, even if the poor and elderly knew to adjust their W-4’s or Social Security payments to get that money on a weekly or monthly basis, it would still hurt.
Everyone would be paying more, so many would feel pushed towards public transportation and/or bicycles, electric bikes or walking. The feds would have this revenue from the gas tax, some of which they would be giving to the poor and those on small fixed incomes. They could use another part of that income on increased subsidies to mass transit, and grants to cities for bus and/or bike lanes and bike paths. Mass transit, with more ridership and increased money from the feds, might be able to do without money from the state or the county. The remainder of hte gas tax revenue could be used to fund or subsidize alternative fuels research and production.
Or all the revenue could be thrown into Universal Health Care.
The funny thing is that the Europeans have been sacrificing on our behalf. With their higher gas taxes, they reduced not only their own demand, but their reduction contributed to a lower world wide demand. Before China and India’s economies took off, we were the only people consuming oil with total abandon, our SUV’s barreling down the road at 80 miles per hour.
It should also be pointed out that the last time gas prices were high, in the seventies and early eighties, Americans reacted fairly admirably by cutting back, and buying smaller cars. Congress reacted intelligently, with the 55 mph speed limit (something else I am in favor of) and with CAFE standards for American cars. Then gas prices came down, the 55 mph speed limit was repealed, and people started buying SUV's, and continued to move further and futher out into the suburbs.
Since oil is a finite resource, and since it also seems clear that we will not behave like it is until we are hit over the head with a sign, I am in favor of taking steps to decrease demand by artificially increasing the price. We can take steps to make sure that poor people can still meet their rent and feed their families, but we need everyone else to suffer some. We have seen that the pain we already feel in the current price run up has influenced our behavior some, demand for gas has fallen a percent or so in the first quarter, although I don’t the impact from the latest run up has truly been measured yet. But to separate the people who truly need a pickup truck from those who want to play cowboy and also to cut down on oil company profits, we need to beat up demand with even higher gas prices.
Now the conversation here has settled on the wisdom or viability of offshore drilling, and drilling in national parks and the ANWR. Never mind the fact that we don’t have additional refining capacity for more oil, or apparently even enough ships equipped to set up the rigs. Or that the oil companies will want to sock us with the initial cost of drilling.
So we have two competing theories of how to bring down the cost of oil, increased supply or decreased demand (the decreased demand is the European solution of high taxes on gas). The increase in supply is straightforward, although some people are predicting it wouldn’t work out that way. The thing is, depleting our domestic supply of oil just so we can continue to drive SUV’s eighty miles an hour on the highway and defer taking steps to address our future … I have no words.
Curbing demand would be difficult. The wealthiest people bought houses the farthest from the cities, bought the largest (and thus the ones that consume the most energy) houses and drive the largest and least efficient vehicles. But they lobby their Representative and/or Senator, and regardless of party, money talks.
Plus a tax on gas of European magnitude, even if it was phased in, would hurt poor people. Even if it was offset by an increased EITC and some kind of tax refund to the elderly, even if the poor and elderly knew to adjust their W-4’s or Social Security payments to get that money on a weekly or monthly basis, it would still hurt.
Everyone would be paying more, so many would feel pushed towards public transportation and/or bicycles, electric bikes or walking. The feds would have this revenue from the gas tax, some of which they would be giving to the poor and those on small fixed incomes. They could use another part of that income on increased subsidies to mass transit, and grants to cities for bus and/or bike lanes and bike paths. Mass transit, with more ridership and increased money from the feds, might be able to do without money from the state or the county. The remainder of hte gas tax revenue could be used to fund or subsidize alternative fuels research and production.
Or all the revenue could be thrown into Universal Health Care.
The funny thing is that the Europeans have been sacrificing on our behalf. With their higher gas taxes, they reduced not only their own demand, but their reduction contributed to a lower world wide demand. Before China and India’s economies took off, we were the only people consuming oil with total abandon, our SUV’s barreling down the road at 80 miles per hour.
It should also be pointed out that the last time gas prices were high, in the seventies and early eighties, Americans reacted fairly admirably by cutting back, and buying smaller cars. Congress reacted intelligently, with the 55 mph speed limit (something else I am in favor of) and with CAFE standards for American cars. Then gas prices came down, the 55 mph speed limit was repealed, and people started buying SUV's, and continued to move further and futher out into the suburbs.
Since oil is a finite resource, and since it also seems clear that we will not behave like it is until we are hit over the head with a sign, I am in favor of taking steps to decrease demand by artificially increasing the price. We can take steps to make sure that poor people can still meet their rent and feed their families, but we need everyone else to suffer some. We have seen that the pain we already feel in the current price run up has influenced our behavior some, demand for gas has fallen a percent or so in the first quarter, although I don’t the impact from the latest run up has truly been measured yet. But to separate the people who truly need a pickup truck from those who want to play cowboy and also to cut down on oil company profits, we need to beat up demand with even higher gas prices.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
John Yoo, Justice of the SCOTUS?
John Yoo, legal conservative extraordinaire, wrote an interesting editorial in the WSJ. He condemned their recent decision giving habeas corpus rights to the detainees at Guantanamo (the Boumediene decision). His reasoning was that these are prisoners of war taken from the battlefield, and such rights have never been given to POW’s. Further, he points out that several of the detainees (over 30), when released as mistakenly captured or whatever, have gone on to join the fight against the US in Iraq. Thus he says a clearly liberal court engaged in “judicial imperialism of the highest order”.
This is, of course, Mr. Yoo’s cover letter to John McCain. First vacancy on the Supremes, you should put me on if you want the right sorts of decisions on Iraq, Mr. Yoo all but screams. I won't go into the various criticisms I have read or heard about Mr. Yoo's editiorial, except to note the exist. Now, I don’t know if the Senate could bring themselves to confirm Mr. Yoo to the SCOTOUS (besides being an unabashed conservative, he is really young), but it hardly hurts to get oneself back on the national radar.
Mr. Yoo didn’t mention the lengthy dissent in Boumediene. Among the arguments (apparently), Justice Scalia states that the constitution stops at the “water’s edge” (except for you, Hawaii), which Mr. Yoo did obliquely refer to as a factor in the Justice Department’s choosing Guantanamo (no habeas for POW’s held outside the country). What’s ironic about that is that Maureen Dowd, covering George W Bush’s trip to Europe in today’s NYTimes, quotes him as saying:
” “There is some (sic) who say that perhaps freedom is not universal,” he asserted, adding that he rejected as elitist the notion that “maybe it’s only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self-government.””
I really enjoy the double standard the administration states with a straight (perhaps smiling) face. Freedom is universal, but only apparently the freedom to have a “unitary” chief executive. The rights of the United States are only for US citizens, you furiners can create your own rights for your own people. I assume Bush will next embrace Robert Mugabe as “my kind of leader”.
This is, of course, Mr. Yoo’s cover letter to John McCain. First vacancy on the Supremes, you should put me on if you want the right sorts of decisions on Iraq, Mr. Yoo all but screams. I won't go into the various criticisms I have read or heard about Mr. Yoo's editiorial, except to note the exist. Now, I don’t know if the Senate could bring themselves to confirm Mr. Yoo to the SCOTOUS (besides being an unabashed conservative, he is really young), but it hardly hurts to get oneself back on the national radar.
Mr. Yoo didn’t mention the lengthy dissent in Boumediene. Among the arguments (apparently), Justice Scalia states that the constitution stops at the “water’s edge” (except for you, Hawaii), which Mr. Yoo did obliquely refer to as a factor in the Justice Department’s choosing Guantanamo (no habeas for POW’s held outside the country). What’s ironic about that is that Maureen Dowd, covering George W Bush’s trip to Europe in today’s NYTimes, quotes him as saying:
” “There is some (sic) who say that perhaps freedom is not universal,” he asserted, adding that he rejected as elitist the notion that “maybe it’s only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self-government.””
I really enjoy the double standard the administration states with a straight (perhaps smiling) face. Freedom is universal, but only apparently the freedom to have a “unitary” chief executive. The rights of the United States are only for US citizens, you furiners can create your own rights for your own people. I assume Bush will next embrace Robert Mugabe as “my kind of leader”.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Empire Strikes Back (Actually just the conservatives ...)
The latest chapter in the electric bike saga, I was going to call the company last night, but I had an errand to run right when I got home, so I didn’t get to the phone until 7:00pm. No problem, their manual say they are open nine to five pacific and I could swear that’s what their recording said, when I called before.
Uh-uh, their recording said their offices were now closed, their hours are nine to four. Mind you, this is a company that also shuts its customer service down at noon (pacific), for training and lunch. Impressive.
So I wrote yesterday about how I thought newspapers were trying to get us to accept not just European policies, they were trying to force a European lifestyle down our throats. But our government(s) also struck blows yesterday, blows for … well against progress. Actually, the state legislature passed a smoking ban, so I can’t complain about that.
But in the city, our Mayor veto’d Bill Peduto’s campaign finance reform bill, and the council was unable to over-ride the veto. Ravenstahl’s reasons, as enumerated in an incomprehensible statement and several confusing interviews, include the lack of statewide limits on contributions, that city wide offices are treated the same as council district offices, a statement that union PACs are somehow disadvantaged by being treated the same as other PACs, and the infamous millionaire argument. Of those, only the city wide versus council argument might have some merit (there’s some sense to the statewide argument, but its like saying gun sales should not be limited, because gun collectors might be affected, as opposed to the criminals the law is aimed at). Saying that no reform should be allowed because it doesn’t restrict millionaires and doesn’t give unions special status is saying nothing should be done until it is in perfect form (not to mention that both those actions, limiting a person’s personal spending on his/her campaign and granting one group status over others for no reason would invite courts to strike the law down). There’s more to say about campaign reform, but the Burgh Report is tossing around a lot of ideas, I'll leave it here for now here.
On the other end of things government, the Senate took giant steps backward in the middle of our energy crisis. Senate Republicans did not allow a bill containing credits for the solar and wind power industries for research and development to come to a floor vote, effectively killing it for the time being. They also blocked a tax on the Oil industries, on “windfall” profits, saying it would just be passed on to the consumer. Now, six months ago, when gas was $3 or a year ago when it was $2.50, I would have said ok, we don’t absolutely need such a tax. But now, at $4 a gallon and rising, we could use the extra incentive to cut back. The Democrats were talking about using the money to help the poor with their energy bills. We know some oil companies are vertically integrated, owning the wells, refineries and franchising the stations (and setting their price). So in fact their actual price per barrel is much less than other refineries and stations. But for them to use that price would be to throw the domestic gas market into a funny sort chaos, beneficial in the short run but ultimately detrimental. But a tax might extract some of those excess profits, and redirect them back to a segment of the consumer market.
Of course, the democrats had their day too. They blocked a Republican sponsored measure to repeal a twenty five year measure banning new drilling in coastal areas. Besides the fact that we don’t want to encourage demand by lowering prices, shouldn’t hold on to the oil we have, in view of our special status as biggest user per capita?
Really, the Senate is proving that American politics is still pretty reactionary, cmpared to those oddly behaving but still progressive Europeans.
Uh-uh, their recording said their offices were now closed, their hours are nine to four. Mind you, this is a company that also shuts its customer service down at noon (pacific), for training and lunch. Impressive.
So I wrote yesterday about how I thought newspapers were trying to get us to accept not just European policies, they were trying to force a European lifestyle down our throats. But our government(s) also struck blows yesterday, blows for … well against progress. Actually, the state legislature passed a smoking ban, so I can’t complain about that.
But in the city, our Mayor veto’d Bill Peduto’s campaign finance reform bill, and the council was unable to over-ride the veto. Ravenstahl’s reasons, as enumerated in an incomprehensible statement and several confusing interviews, include the lack of statewide limits on contributions, that city wide offices are treated the same as council district offices, a statement that union PACs are somehow disadvantaged by being treated the same as other PACs, and the infamous millionaire argument. Of those, only the city wide versus council argument might have some merit (there’s some sense to the statewide argument, but its like saying gun sales should not be limited, because gun collectors might be affected, as opposed to the criminals the law is aimed at). Saying that no reform should be allowed because it doesn’t restrict millionaires and doesn’t give unions special status is saying nothing should be done until it is in perfect form (not to mention that both those actions, limiting a person’s personal spending on his/her campaign and granting one group status over others for no reason would invite courts to strike the law down). There’s more to say about campaign reform, but the Burgh Report is tossing around a lot of ideas, I'll leave it here for now here.
On the other end of things government, the Senate took giant steps backward in the middle of our energy crisis. Senate Republicans did not allow a bill containing credits for the solar and wind power industries for research and development to come to a floor vote, effectively killing it for the time being. They also blocked a tax on the Oil industries, on “windfall” profits, saying it would just be passed on to the consumer. Now, six months ago, when gas was $3 or a year ago when it was $2.50, I would have said ok, we don’t absolutely need such a tax. But now, at $4 a gallon and rising, we could use the extra incentive to cut back. The Democrats were talking about using the money to help the poor with their energy bills. We know some oil companies are vertically integrated, owning the wells, refineries and franchising the stations (and setting their price). So in fact their actual price per barrel is much less than other refineries and stations. But for them to use that price would be to throw the domestic gas market into a funny sort chaos, beneficial in the short run but ultimately detrimental. But a tax might extract some of those excess profits, and redirect them back to a segment of the consumer market.
Of course, the democrats had their day too. They blocked a Republican sponsored measure to repeal a twenty five year measure banning new drilling in coastal areas. Besides the fact that we don’t want to encourage demand by lowering prices, shouldn’t hold on to the oil we have, in view of our special status as biggest user per capita?
Really, the Senate is proving that American politics is still pretty reactionary, cmpared to those oddly behaving but still progressive Europeans.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Not so much (electric) ... and also those crazy Europeans
Well, I rode the electric bike last Monday and then again on Friday. Something I did, I assume riding it to work on Monday four miles and then *not* charging it at work (since it is supposed to have a range of 8 miles and I thought I could just ride it back home) has caused the battery to basically fully discharge. Now it seems to have a range of two miles of electric charge, with pedaling. Needless to say I am pissed off. I tried calling the company yesterday, but they wanted the bike and charger present, which would be difficult considering I was calling from work (during lunch). I meant to call them when I got home (they're on the left coast), but got distracted.
Now, I was always taught and learned the hard way a few times that you don't recharge a battery until it mostly or fully discharges. It you always leave a laptop plugged in, after a while the battery will never hold a charge. But apparently Sealed Lead Acid batteries are different, you must charge after each use and letting them get down to 20% charge spells doom for the battery. Which still makes no sense to me.
ButI have this fear that Currie Technologies will say I screwed up the battery. So I am dithering between sending the battery for "warranty work" and just buying a new battery and being done with it. I will probably choose the worst of all worlds, buy the new battery and also send the old battery in for warranty work, so they can yell at me.
Meanwhile I took my “basement bike” to Iron City Bikes to get worked on. To me, a basement bike is one you used to ride, and then it got a rear flat tire, which are pains because of the derailleur, so it sat for a couple of years. My bike is a hybrid or cross bike, one with a frame shaped like a mountain bike frame, but lighter and with tires thinner than a mountain bikes but not as thin as a road bike. It has no motor, though, so I either have to ride that eight tenths of a mile hill up Stanton or carry it up city steps from Morningside.
But the city schools are suppose to let out this week. I may try the city buses again, with the folding bike.
A bunch of articles and blog posts have looked to Europe as a model for alleviating some of our current problems, particularly around oil. I remember reading somewhere in the PG sometime in the last two weeks a piece about how in Austria people often live in apartment complexes near a bus line or a light rail line, and commute that way. The piece mention how people walk around city centres, and how there is almost no street crime.
But I also read yesterday about truckers in Spain, France and Portugal going on strike protesting high gas prices. And of course you wonder about stories about low crime in Europe when there are soccer riots and used to be terrorists.
I do think that some European-style gas taxes here (ie $4 a gallon) would be a good thing. Although tough to deal with on a personal level.
The latest Europhile suggestion was made by Bob Feikima on Sunday (who I know of through a relative). He complains that American drivers try to cheat traffic lights, barreling through yellow and then the first part of red lights. In fact, he said that lights equipped with cameras cause rear end collisions, as drivers at the rear of a column of cars are surprised when someone aheadof them obeyes the law. He was advocates removing all traffic lights and signage from intersections, something apparently done in Europe, Then if you are approaching an intersection and see a driver, you have to”negotiate” by catching his/her attention and bargaining on whether you have to stop or he/she should.
Personally I am not impressed with this idea. As I drive through Stanton Heights and other neighborhoods around the city, there are frequently narrow streets with about three lanes. So if cars are parked on both sides, and a car is approaching me, I have to do this negotiating thing that Feikima suggests. I generally pull over, expecting the other car will proceed for a little way and then do the same. But what happens about ninety percent of the time is that the other driver continues and drives right past me. My only other alternative would be to play chicken with other drivers, not terribly appealing.
This is what is likely to happen if Feikima’s suggestion is adopted. There will be a whole bunch of side impacts as cars try to jockey their way through intersections, believing they can beat the on coming car and force it to slam on its brakes (and most satisfyingly skid into a parked car). But maybe soon we will be forced to abandon our cars for bikes anyway. I am willing to risk an electric bike to electric bike accident.
Now, I was always taught and learned the hard way a few times that you don't recharge a battery until it mostly or fully discharges. It you always leave a laptop plugged in, after a while the battery will never hold a charge. But apparently Sealed Lead Acid batteries are different, you must charge after each use and letting them get down to 20% charge spells doom for the battery. Which still makes no sense to me.
ButI have this fear that Currie Technologies will say I screwed up the battery. So I am dithering between sending the battery for "warranty work" and just buying a new battery and being done with it. I will probably choose the worst of all worlds, buy the new battery and also send the old battery in for warranty work, so they can yell at me.
Meanwhile I took my “basement bike” to Iron City Bikes to get worked on. To me, a basement bike is one you used to ride, and then it got a rear flat tire, which are pains because of the derailleur, so it sat for a couple of years. My bike is a hybrid or cross bike, one with a frame shaped like a mountain bike frame, but lighter and with tires thinner than a mountain bikes but not as thin as a road bike. It has no motor, though, so I either have to ride that eight tenths of a mile hill up Stanton or carry it up city steps from Morningside.
But the city schools are suppose to let out this week. I may try the city buses again, with the folding bike.
A bunch of articles and blog posts have looked to Europe as a model for alleviating some of our current problems, particularly around oil. I remember reading somewhere in the PG sometime in the last two weeks a piece about how in Austria people often live in apartment complexes near a bus line or a light rail line, and commute that way. The piece mention how people walk around city centres, and how there is almost no street crime.
But I also read yesterday about truckers in Spain, France and Portugal going on strike protesting high gas prices. And of course you wonder about stories about low crime in Europe when there are soccer riots and used to be terrorists.
I do think that some European-style gas taxes here (ie $4 a gallon) would be a good thing. Although tough to deal with on a personal level.
The latest Europhile suggestion was made by Bob Feikima on Sunday (who I know of through a relative). He complains that American drivers try to cheat traffic lights, barreling through yellow and then the first part of red lights. In fact, he said that lights equipped with cameras cause rear end collisions, as drivers at the rear of a column of cars are surprised when someone aheadof them obeyes the law. He was advocates removing all traffic lights and signage from intersections, something apparently done in Europe, Then if you are approaching an intersection and see a driver, you have to”negotiate” by catching his/her attention and bargaining on whether you have to stop or he/she should.
Personally I am not impressed with this idea. As I drive through Stanton Heights and other neighborhoods around the city, there are frequently narrow streets with about three lanes. So if cars are parked on both sides, and a car is approaching me, I have to do this negotiating thing that Feikima suggests. I generally pull over, expecting the other car will proceed for a little way and then do the same. But what happens about ninety percent of the time is that the other driver continues and drives right past me. My only other alternative would be to play chicken with other drivers, not terribly appealing.
This is what is likely to happen if Feikima’s suggestion is adopted. There will be a whole bunch of side impacts as cars try to jockey their way through intersections, believing they can beat the on coming car and force it to slam on its brakes (and most satisfyingly skid into a parked car). But maybe soon we will be forced to abandon our cars for bikes anyway. I am willing to risk an electric bike to electric bike accident.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
It's Electric!
Again, long time, no post. I've been busy, we moved my mother in law into a nursing home, I took a trip south (see last post) and general other stuff. I am in the process of buying a new (used) car, more on that later.
I don’t think I mentioned that I bought an electric bike. I did> I have taken it on one test ride into work so far, and it doesn’t look like I will get another ride this week because it is due to rain the rest of the week. I bought the bike here. So I am substituting dirty coal power for human power, somewhat. I can basically live with that, since it is not a whole lot of dirty coal power, but that brings up another issue. I rode the thing into work, using the battery fairly frequently to give me an assist up hills and so on. I then let the battery sit the rest of the day while I worked. What I really wanted the power assist for was the ride up a long hill at the end of the ride home. But when I reinstalled the battery at five, it was indicating a half or less charge. I wasn’t sure how much power was left, so I rode the bike as a regular bike most of the was home (albeit a seventy five pound regular bike). When I tackled the hill, the battery still had juice, but it didn’t seem to be much. The bike and I struggled up the hill.
Now, I am not supposed to let the charge go below 20%, but there is no meter to indicate when you get down to there, so I just have to hope. The battery on the bike is a sealed lead acid type, apparently the heaviest, and indeed it weighs 25 pounds by itself. Meanwhile, I am only supposed to get 200 to 300 charges on it. Maybe by the time I go to replace it there will be something lighter and more durable. Meanwhile, that 200 to 300 charges was the reason I didn’t plug the battery in at work. I may have to start doing that, but then maybe I won’t be riding the bike that much, not if I want to avoid rainy days (rain plus electricity does not sound like a good idea, besides the lack of fenders). We’ll see. Still, even if I only ride 100 to 150 times, that’s a lot of gas to save.
I don’t think I mentioned that I bought an electric bike. I did> I have taken it on one test ride into work so far, and it doesn’t look like I will get another ride this week because it is due to rain the rest of the week. I bought the bike here. So I am substituting dirty coal power for human power, somewhat. I can basically live with that, since it is not a whole lot of dirty coal power, but that brings up another issue. I rode the thing into work, using the battery fairly frequently to give me an assist up hills and so on. I then let the battery sit the rest of the day while I worked. What I really wanted the power assist for was the ride up a long hill at the end of the ride home. But when I reinstalled the battery at five, it was indicating a half or less charge. I wasn’t sure how much power was left, so I rode the bike as a regular bike most of the was home (albeit a seventy five pound regular bike). When I tackled the hill, the battery still had juice, but it didn’t seem to be much. The bike and I struggled up the hill.
Now, I am not supposed to let the charge go below 20%, but there is no meter to indicate when you get down to there, so I just have to hope. The battery on the bike is a sealed lead acid type, apparently the heaviest, and indeed it weighs 25 pounds by itself. Meanwhile, I am only supposed to get 200 to 300 charges on it. Maybe by the time I go to replace it there will be something lighter and more durable. Meanwhile, that 200 to 300 charges was the reason I didn’t plug the battery in at work. I may have to start doing that, but then maybe I won’t be riding the bike that much, not if I want to avoid rainy days (rain plus electricity does not sound like a good idea, besides the lack of fenders). We’ll see. Still, even if I only ride 100 to 150 times, that’s a lot of gas to save.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
A conversation with my evil Republican side
It’s all the Democrats fault. They messed up everything when they took over Congress in 2006, which is exactly when the price of oil started going up. They put these provisions in the last energy bill, which prohibited the import of Canadian oil made from the oil sands, and prevented western states from developing oil shale. That caused the price of oil to go up. It shot up even higher when Reid and Pelosi issued statements saying they still weren’t to let Canadian oil made from oil sands to come into the US. We need to import that oil and drill in the Arctic and off the coasts of Canada and Texas. Then the price of gas will come down, and we will be able to get back to the things we like to do.
Well, if the Democrats we doing something, why didn’t Bush say anything, why didn’t he veto the energy bill? Also, I doubt the increased drilling in Alaska and off the coasts would bring in that much crude, and anyway, currently refineries are operating at only 80%, apparently the keep the price of gas higher. Also, aren’t we robbing our children’s future if we drill for very drop of oil and use it all up? How long can these new sources of oil last, and even if we could flood the market with crude, wouldn’t that just keep people from developing new sources of energy and fuel, because the gas would be so cheap?
The Democrats probably buried the restrictions deep in the energy bill. As for how long the new sources of oil can last, I’m sure it’ll be twenty or thirty years, long enough for those hippie eggheads at Berkeley to finally get off their butts and develop something useful, besides the electric golf cart Ed Begley Jr tools around in. That’s when our kids will need the jet packs to replace our SUV’s. Once the Arab countries know we are developing hydrogen powered jet packs, they will fall all over themselves to drop the price of crude.
dotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdot
I just came back from a three day trip, driving down to Chapel Hill, North Carolina for a birthday party for two cousins and my dad. The drive was grueling, ten hours each way, made longer because I tried to drive 60 the whole way, instead of 65 or 70 (or 80 or 90). I had borrowed my mom’s car (I was kind of pressured to take it) because my mechanic has more or less pronounced my car to be on its last legs. Something about how the pistons get the air to mix with the gas fails once the car warms up. So I need to get a car, and I can do that, but I am in the in between stage right now (and didn’t want to drive a limping car ten hours down).
So I drove 60, partially to save gas for my own benefit, but also to make a statement. I have heard both 55 and 60 as the optimal fuel economy for cars, probably because fuel economy is tested in a couple of different ways (sometimes in a lab, sometimes in real world tests). Around here, when I drive 60 on Route 28, I pass as many cars as pass me. But on the interstates, I passed few cars, and many passed me. I don’t know if other cars were driving 60 (I wouldn’t, since I wouldn’t pass them if we were both driving the same speed), but I suspect I was something of an oddity on the road. That’s what inspired me to write the above fictional exchange.
I think the people advocating drilling much more are being incredibly selfish, willing to throw away their grandchildren’s future so they can be more comfortable in the present. Of course, I suspect they would think I was being selfish. I would advocate taxing gas to double the price. I think that would encourage conservation and the use of bicycles and public transportation. I’m sure people would say I was trying to tax the rich (true) and that I don’t care about poor people and I would be bankrupting governments. Actually, I would advocate not taxing gas sold to transit companies and city governments for the use of cops and fire trucks and the like. I think a tax credit could be given to rural volunteer fire fighters and EMS. And I think the Earned Income Credit could be increased for the working poor (maybe out of the gas tax funds) and state employment agencies could give cash to poor people actively looking for work.
I was thinking about all this as I watched cars in West Virginia drive at maybe 80 or 85. There were SUV’s and Prius’ right behind them; ten, fifteen or more miles over the speed limit. The ironic thing is that because of taxes, the gas is West Virginia is twenty cents more per gallon than in Pennsylvania, even though it seems to me that we drive a bit slower on average around here than they do there. The people who want to drill, who want to vote the Democrats out of Congress, could also chose to just slow down. It doesn’t even matter what kind of car (or SUV or pickup) they have, as long as they slow down, they will save gas. Sure, when these people went to buy or lease, they could have chosen a smaller car. But that is water under the bridge. But the eight dollar a gallon gas (with the new gas tax I favor) would like influence their next car purchase.
Well, if the Democrats we doing something, why didn’t Bush say anything, why didn’t he veto the energy bill? Also, I doubt the increased drilling in Alaska and off the coasts would bring in that much crude, and anyway, currently refineries are operating at only 80%, apparently the keep the price of gas higher. Also, aren’t we robbing our children’s future if we drill for very drop of oil and use it all up? How long can these new sources of oil last, and even if we could flood the market with crude, wouldn’t that just keep people from developing new sources of energy and fuel, because the gas would be so cheap?
The Democrats probably buried the restrictions deep in the energy bill. As for how long the new sources of oil can last, I’m sure it’ll be twenty or thirty years, long enough for those hippie eggheads at Berkeley to finally get off their butts and develop something useful, besides the electric golf cart Ed Begley Jr tools around in. That’s when our kids will need the jet packs to replace our SUV’s. Once the Arab countries know we are developing hydrogen powered jet packs, they will fall all over themselves to drop the price of crude.
dotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdot
I just came back from a three day trip, driving down to Chapel Hill, North Carolina for a birthday party for two cousins and my dad. The drive was grueling, ten hours each way, made longer because I tried to drive 60 the whole way, instead of 65 or 70 (or 80 or 90). I had borrowed my mom’s car (I was kind of pressured to take it) because my mechanic has more or less pronounced my car to be on its last legs. Something about how the pistons get the air to mix with the gas fails once the car warms up. So I need to get a car, and I can do that, but I am in the in between stage right now (and didn’t want to drive a limping car ten hours down).
So I drove 60, partially to save gas for my own benefit, but also to make a statement. I have heard both 55 and 60 as the optimal fuel economy for cars, probably because fuel economy is tested in a couple of different ways (sometimes in a lab, sometimes in real world tests). Around here, when I drive 60 on Route 28, I pass as many cars as pass me. But on the interstates, I passed few cars, and many passed me. I don’t know if other cars were driving 60 (I wouldn’t, since I wouldn’t pass them if we were both driving the same speed), but I suspect I was something of an oddity on the road. That’s what inspired me to write the above fictional exchange.
I think the people advocating drilling much more are being incredibly selfish, willing to throw away their grandchildren’s future so they can be more comfortable in the present. Of course, I suspect they would think I was being selfish. I would advocate taxing gas to double the price. I think that would encourage conservation and the use of bicycles and public transportation. I’m sure people would say I was trying to tax the rich (true) and that I don’t care about poor people and I would be bankrupting governments. Actually, I would advocate not taxing gas sold to transit companies and city governments for the use of cops and fire trucks and the like. I think a tax credit could be given to rural volunteer fire fighters and EMS. And I think the Earned Income Credit could be increased for the working poor (maybe out of the gas tax funds) and state employment agencies could give cash to poor people actively looking for work.
I was thinking about all this as I watched cars in West Virginia drive at maybe 80 or 85. There were SUV’s and Prius’ right behind them; ten, fifteen or more miles over the speed limit. The ironic thing is that because of taxes, the gas is West Virginia is twenty cents more per gallon than in Pennsylvania, even though it seems to me that we drive a bit slower on average around here than they do there. The people who want to drill, who want to vote the Democrats out of Congress, could also chose to just slow down. It doesn’t even matter what kind of car (or SUV or pickup) they have, as long as they slow down, they will save gas. Sure, when these people went to buy or lease, they could have chosen a smaller car. But that is water under the bridge. But the eight dollar a gallon gas (with the new gas tax I favor) would like influence their next car purchase.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
4 plus or minus 1
So I was bad about posting last week, partly because we had people coming to visit, my sister in law and family, including a four year old. He was almost everything I expected, but when his 23ish uncle and I had to watch him for about two and a half hours, it went surprisingly smoothly. Not so much when, on his birthday on Monday, someone in the morning unwisely mentioned he would get cake later (I honestly don’t know who). He then decided he wanted cake for breakfast, and was inconsolable for a good (or rather bad) hour. During the visit he flailed considerably, jumped repeatedly on a bean bag chair, repeatedly ran into an air mattress propped up against the wall, but only suffered one boo boo running into the air mattress at its edge and slamming into the wall beside it. For all his running and flailing, he never kicked any of the electronics. And I think the Chinchilla survived intact; she was probably more pissed that we are out of bananas.
We’ve all, by now, probably heard about the four City Council members clever maneuver of walking out of Council when the issue of their own payment for a lawyer in the LED sign affair came up. This was done because the Law Department issued an opinion that the four should not even discuss payment, much less vote on it, since it represented a conflict of interest. Mind you, the Mayor accepts tickets to charity events and then discusses City business with the companies that donated tens of thousands of dollars on his behalf at the event (hell, he brags about how he was working then), but that is not seen as a conflict of interest. The City Law department needs to grow up, they need to start behaving like adults. The issue in question with the four had extraordinary circumstances. The City Solicitor told the Council persons he could not represent them, because he had a conflict of interest. The Council persons did not receive any benefit from taking this action, they were simply trying to compel the City and Lamar to follow the rules.
Now, you can ask whether the four should have joined Dr Dowd’s suit. You can say that if they were going to do that, they should have done so as he did, as private citizens. But you can also say that if they hadn’t joined the suit, that Lamar might have pressured the Zoning Board to ignore Dr Dowd, or simply to rule against him, forcing him to take the matter to Common Pleas (where it ended up anyway).
When I first wrote about Dr Dowd in January of last year, I believe I wrote that politicians always break your heart, because they are human and almost always have to take some action you disagree with. Certainly some commenters are complaining about Dr Dowd’s vote yesterday, including me. But then some commenters have always been against Dr Dowd, because they preferred Len Bodack or they didn’t like Dr Dowd’s performance on the School Board. Dr Dowd, along with Jim Motnik, asked for the opinion from the Law Department. This is the second time I know that Dr Dowd has asked for an opinion for the Law Department, although in fact he may have asked for many tht I never caught. But the first time I knew of was when he asked for an opinion about the LED sign, and that took weeks. In fact, I think it only arrived after Dr Dowd had filed his appeal. If Dr Dowd had waited for the opinion, he probably would have been too late with the appeal.
This city’s elected officials have had a tenuous relationship with ethics. Between the hostile reaction to Bill Peduto’s campaign finance reform legislation and the Mayor’s antics, the one issue the Law Department has reacted swiftly on is whether the four Council persons have a conflict of interest in getting their legal bill paid, on an issue the Law Department should have handled themselves months ago. Evidently Dr Dowd is still prepared to take the Law Department seriously, even though I can’t imagine anyone else does. I myself had characterized George Specter (who I am sure is a perfectly nice guy) as similar to the lawyer Ted on Scrubs, and I am thinking he is sliding back into that role. Dr Dowd needs to decide if he believes the Law Department is still acting in good faith in rendering its opinions, or if it is simply taking direction from the Mayor’s office.
We’ve all, by now, probably heard about the four City Council members clever maneuver of walking out of Council when the issue of their own payment for a lawyer in the LED sign affair came up. This was done because the Law Department issued an opinion that the four should not even discuss payment, much less vote on it, since it represented a conflict of interest. Mind you, the Mayor accepts tickets to charity events and then discusses City business with the companies that donated tens of thousands of dollars on his behalf at the event (hell, he brags about how he was working then), but that is not seen as a conflict of interest. The City Law department needs to grow up, they need to start behaving like adults. The issue in question with the four had extraordinary circumstances. The City Solicitor told the Council persons he could not represent them, because he had a conflict of interest. The Council persons did not receive any benefit from taking this action, they were simply trying to compel the City and Lamar to follow the rules.
Now, you can ask whether the four should have joined Dr Dowd’s suit. You can say that if they were going to do that, they should have done so as he did, as private citizens. But you can also say that if they hadn’t joined the suit, that Lamar might have pressured the Zoning Board to ignore Dr Dowd, or simply to rule against him, forcing him to take the matter to Common Pleas (where it ended up anyway).
When I first wrote about Dr Dowd in January of last year, I believe I wrote that politicians always break your heart, because they are human and almost always have to take some action you disagree with. Certainly some commenters are complaining about Dr Dowd’s vote yesterday, including me. But then some commenters have always been against Dr Dowd, because they preferred Len Bodack or they didn’t like Dr Dowd’s performance on the School Board. Dr Dowd, along with Jim Motnik, asked for the opinion from the Law Department. This is the second time I know that Dr Dowd has asked for an opinion for the Law Department, although in fact he may have asked for many tht I never caught. But the first time I knew of was when he asked for an opinion about the LED sign, and that took weeks. In fact, I think it only arrived after Dr Dowd had filed his appeal. If Dr Dowd had waited for the opinion, he probably would have been too late with the appeal.
This city’s elected officials have had a tenuous relationship with ethics. Between the hostile reaction to Bill Peduto’s campaign finance reform legislation and the Mayor’s antics, the one issue the Law Department has reacted swiftly on is whether the four Council persons have a conflict of interest in getting their legal bill paid, on an issue the Law Department should have handled themselves months ago. Evidently Dr Dowd is still prepared to take the Law Department seriously, even though I can’t imagine anyone else does. I myself had characterized George Specter (who I am sure is a perfectly nice guy) as similar to the lawyer Ted on Scrubs, and I am thinking he is sliding back into that role. Dr Dowd needs to decide if he believes the Law Department is still acting in good faith in rendering its opinions, or if it is simply taking direction from the Mayor’s office.
Monday, May 05, 2008
More gas ('scuse me)
Kent Moors was on the KD/PG Sunday edition, which I caught from the web later in the day on Sunday (http://kdka.com/video/?id=40898@kdka.dayport.com, http://kdka.com/video/?id=40899@kdka.dayport.com). He said a couple of very interesting things, which I hadn’t heard before (although one I had suspected). He said that US refineries are currently operating at 85%, which was actually up some from earlier in the year. I had thought (and I keep reading from other sources) that the refineries were maxed out. But in fact oil companies are creating an artificial shortage, to drive the price of gas up just a bit more.
Moors mentioned that several of the big oil companies are vertical companies, meaning they control the oil fields, the refineries and the distribution of the refined oil (the gas we put in our cars). He speculated that their cost for a barrel of oil was actually around $75 (what they charged themselves). I had always thought this was the case, so it was nice to hear Dr Moors verify it. So these bigger oil companies (probably Shell, Exxon, BP, Sunoco and others) could give us a break, but they would rather make a profit now.
Moors also said that he expected worldwide demand to jump in ’08 and ’09, and the supply we see now would start to dry up. I assume that means we can expect to see a sharp rise in the price of gas. I believe Moors mentioned that he thought the Asians would be willing to pay more for gas than we would, but I don’t remember if he described what would happen as a consequence of that.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton literally says that she doesn’t want to listen to economists, because they give you “Elite Opinions”. More than a few people have already drawn the comparison to George Bush. Apparently Mrs. Clinton said, on one of the network morning news shows, that a lot of people don’t understand what she is proposing. I think I do, it is the gas tax holiday combined with a windfall profits tax on oil companies. I haven’t looked to see what constitutes a windfall profit, but I think Mrs. Clinton will find forty nine Republicans and Barack Obama voting against her in the Senate, leaving the tie breaker up to Dick Cheney… Hmm, wonder how he would vote? In a perfect world, the Republicans would support Clinton’s plan, just to watch it fail. But there is a chance the windfall profits tax would hurt the oil companies, so I doubt that will happen. Clinton still gets to portray herself as the champion of the little guy, the poor white trash who never got themselves much book learnin’. That must kill Obama.
Moors mentioned that several of the big oil companies are vertical companies, meaning they control the oil fields, the refineries and the distribution of the refined oil (the gas we put in our cars). He speculated that their cost for a barrel of oil was actually around $75 (what they charged themselves). I had always thought this was the case, so it was nice to hear Dr Moors verify it. So these bigger oil companies (probably Shell, Exxon, BP, Sunoco and others) could give us a break, but they would rather make a profit now.
Moors also said that he expected worldwide demand to jump in ’08 and ’09, and the supply we see now would start to dry up. I assume that means we can expect to see a sharp rise in the price of gas. I believe Moors mentioned that he thought the Asians would be willing to pay more for gas than we would, but I don’t remember if he described what would happen as a consequence of that.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton literally says that she doesn’t want to listen to economists, because they give you “Elite Opinions”. More than a few people have already drawn the comparison to George Bush. Apparently Mrs. Clinton said, on one of the network morning news shows, that a lot of people don’t understand what she is proposing. I think I do, it is the gas tax holiday combined with a windfall profits tax on oil companies. I haven’t looked to see what constitutes a windfall profit, but I think Mrs. Clinton will find forty nine Republicans and Barack Obama voting against her in the Senate, leaving the tie breaker up to Dick Cheney… Hmm, wonder how he would vote? In a perfect world, the Republicans would support Clinton’s plan, just to watch it fail. But there is a chance the windfall profits tax would hurt the oil companies, so I doubt that will happen. Clinton still gets to portray herself as the champion of the little guy, the poor white trash who never got themselves much book learnin’. That must kill Obama.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
How many dollars a gallon?
The national Sunday morning news shows focused on Obama and Clinton, because of the recent Reverend Wright resurgence and the upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. However, the KD/PG program and the Post Gazette Forum section focused on the price of gas. That’s not surprising, now that our primary has gone by, we can and are more interested in every day matters. The Post Gazette’s piece, by a CMU professor named Lester Lave, was both pretty interesting and sort of a “no duh” sort of piece. He began by giving a reasonable sort of over view of the US’s recent history of gas consumption, the missed opportunities to improve mileage standards and the unfortunate fashion of buying SUV’s (as one owner put it , because everyone else has one). He mentioned that Europeans are much more efficient consumers of energy, in their buildings, their industries and their transportation. He also made the statement that they do not suffer in their standard of living, something that many of us simply might not believe.
He made some policy prescriptions as well. The first was to raise mileage standards and the second to educate consumers. Of course, Congress simply has not shown the will to raise the CAFÉ standards and especially with “An Inconvenient Truth”, those who are willing to be educated (and even many of those who aren’t) have learned quite a bit. Dr Lave’s last suggestion is one that has in fact been made many times, but may be getting closer to being enacted. Instead of enacting a gas tax holiday, Dr Lave proposes going the European route and enacting a gas tax nightmare – four dollars a gallon tax. According to Dr. Lave (and I believe him, by the way) Europeans are paying $8.50 a gallon. Before the wealthy white readers throw up their hands and say “What about the poor people?” (many of whom may not have cars), remember that tax revenue can come back to targeted groups. Dr. Lave suggests exempting the $20,000 of income from the Social Security tax, paid for the gas tax revenue. I think the earned income credit could be adjusted upward as an alternative, for example. The EIC is a great way to help the nation’s working poor, too, because it costs employers nothing, so it doesn’t impact prices (the way the minimum wage might). Now, I would hope a four dollar a gallon tax would be phased in, say a dollar a gallon every six months. The oil companies would scream bloody murder because their profits would go down with the decreased gasoline use. But they helped get us in to this problem, and they wouldn’t disappear, they’d just have to get use to smaller profits. And the tax revenue could also help fund research on alternative fuels.
I myself have decided that bringing a folding bike on to a PAT bus is a practical impossibility. I may still try a few trial runs after July first (when I am sure there will be few or no Schenley students on the morning bus). But I have already ordered a cheap electric bike (from Walmart). It’s due to arrive in about a week. Actually, its not so cheap, it will take, in my estimate, a year to pay for itself in lower gas consumption. And it is recharged from the house electricity, so I am helping the coal burning electric companies (although not a whole heck of a lot). However, arriving to work not totally drenched in sweat is an appealing idea, and perhaps my presence on the road will give a few more people the idea that they too could occasionally abandon their cars and find some sort of two wheeled transportation.
He made some policy prescriptions as well. The first was to raise mileage standards and the second to educate consumers. Of course, Congress simply has not shown the will to raise the CAFÉ standards and especially with “An Inconvenient Truth”, those who are willing to be educated (and even many of those who aren’t) have learned quite a bit. Dr Lave’s last suggestion is one that has in fact been made many times, but may be getting closer to being enacted. Instead of enacting a gas tax holiday, Dr Lave proposes going the European route and enacting a gas tax nightmare – four dollars a gallon tax. According to Dr. Lave (and I believe him, by the way) Europeans are paying $8.50 a gallon. Before the wealthy white readers throw up their hands and say “What about the poor people?” (many of whom may not have cars), remember that tax revenue can come back to targeted groups. Dr. Lave suggests exempting the $20,000 of income from the Social Security tax, paid for the gas tax revenue. I think the earned income credit could be adjusted upward as an alternative, for example. The EIC is a great way to help the nation’s working poor, too, because it costs employers nothing, so it doesn’t impact prices (the way the minimum wage might). Now, I would hope a four dollar a gallon tax would be phased in, say a dollar a gallon every six months. The oil companies would scream bloody murder because their profits would go down with the decreased gasoline use. But they helped get us in to this problem, and they wouldn’t disappear, they’d just have to get use to smaller profits. And the tax revenue could also help fund research on alternative fuels.
I myself have decided that bringing a folding bike on to a PAT bus is a practical impossibility. I may still try a few trial runs after July first (when I am sure there will be few or no Schenley students on the morning bus). But I have already ordered a cheap electric bike (from Walmart). It’s due to arrive in about a week. Actually, its not so cheap, it will take, in my estimate, a year to pay for itself in lower gas consumption. And it is recharged from the house electricity, so I am helping the coal burning electric companies (although not a whole heck of a lot). However, arriving to work not totally drenched in sweat is an appealing idea, and perhaps my presence on the road will give a few more people the idea that they too could occasionally abandon their cars and find some sort of two wheeled transportation.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Free for all market
I’m probably getting this wrong, but it seems like the Republicans, in their haste to strike out and set up their own policy on health care, are actually undermining the shaky, crappy system we have now. I believe I have read that John McCain’s proposal ends the employer based tax deduction for employer based plans and instead offers a tax credit to everyone – $2500 for individuals or $5000 for families – to buy their own health care coverage. That’s fine as far as it goes, but employer based health care plans offer health insurance companies pools of healthy people (they are working, after all) to insure. Even the spouses and children tend to be healthy (they live in the United States and are not destitute, since mom and/or dad are working). It seems likely to me that if individuals or families get the tax credits, employers will stop offering health insurance to their employees, letting the employee take on the burden of finding a health insurance plan to use the tax credit with. I’ve criticized the proposals of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama because I believe we need a single payer health care plan, because I believe we need to dismantle the health insurance industry. I didn’t think the Republicans would be the ones to take the first steps to actually do that.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
It's a gas, gas ... gas
So apparently US refineries are working at full capacity. This, much more than the supply of crude oil, whether at home or abroad, determines the supply of fuel here. This is what the boring veteran of the Reagan *and* Clinton administration's said on the PBS news hour last night. If there is a gas tax holiday, and the price of gas drops (say, to $3.25), and lots of Americans plan a farewell tour this summer, what do you think will happen? Gas stations will run out of gas. Right now, the supply of gas is inelastic, that is, it is fixed. It is fixed at the level we are getting right now. Hillary Clinton’s gas tax holiday combined with a windfall profits tax might be revenue neutral (although it may also cost money or make money, it all depends how the plan is set up). But I doubt President Bush would sign it into law, and in fact I doubt the republicans would let it get out of the Senate. John McCain’s plan may have a chance on both counts, which means we may see the price of gas rise a little slower, and yet the oil companies will get a lot richer faster. But the republicans will have done something to help the common man.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Reverend Wright redux
I hadn’t planned to stay away so long. I was somewhat downtrodden about Obama’s loss in our state, although it was expected. I am also somewhat disappointed that people (including me) are not interested in issues, preferring to speculate who would be more fun to have a beer with, the black guy or the old lady. Well, I have looked at the candidates’ websites, but not taken the time to actually read their policy proposals.
I had planned to write something on Sunday, but my wife wiped it out when she went to read her email.
Still, I am a bit inspired tonight, after watching the news about Obama’s press conference. Pundits and the like were annoyed that Obama had not done more to distance himself from Reverend Wright when those YouTube videos had first surfaced a couple of weeks ago. Obama had instead offered a complex statement about how he rejected the statements as edited, but understood the man. I can understand this idea. After all, Reverend Wright had no control over these videos, presumably edited from the church’s DVD.
But now Reverend Wright has embarked on what seems to be a speaking tour. Now the Reverend has complete control over his own words, even whether to say anything. And he is speaking up a storm, saying things that African Americans are perhaps like to agree with or at least understand, but that may chill or annoy white voters. Louis Farakhan (spelling?) is one of the great thinkers of the 20th and 21st centuries. The US government is using AIDS to try to wipe out African Americans. Now, I would give Mr Farakhan his due, as a highly successful leader, but I suspect there are a lot of people who are as intelligent, and no small number more intelligent than him. And while the US government has a shameful record in using African Americans as guinea pigs in some experiments, the notion that the government is both smart and stupid enough to use Aids as a weapon against anyone is sheer fantasy.
So of course Mr. Obama did not say anything until now. He has to respond now, and he responded in a way that leaves no room for doubt, that makes it clear Obama shares the values of his white constituents with regard to African American radicalism. Some of his African American supporters may be a little disappointed, but they likely understand why Obama has to say that.
I had thought the first African American President might be someone like Colin Powell or Condi Rice. Like Margaret Thatcher, who did not have to prove anything about whether she was tough enough for the job, so too a Colin Powell would never be mistaken for a radical. But Barack Obama surprised me. It did not seem to be an issue with him. He convinced enough people that the number of people who felt the country was ready for a black President went from 50% to 75% over the last year (according to Meet the Press). But now the Clinton’s are trying to tie labels on him, radical, Muslim, weak. Now, I don’t think Obama’s lead of maybe a hundred and fifty delegates is a sufficient reason for Hillary to drop out of the race. But I am beginning to be convinced that her willingness to do the Republicans work for them and go negative is a reason for her to drop out.
I guess we’ll see.
I had planned to write something on Sunday, but my wife wiped it out when she went to read her email.
Still, I am a bit inspired tonight, after watching the news about Obama’s press conference. Pundits and the like were annoyed that Obama had not done more to distance himself from Reverend Wright when those YouTube videos had first surfaced a couple of weeks ago. Obama had instead offered a complex statement about how he rejected the statements as edited, but understood the man. I can understand this idea. After all, Reverend Wright had no control over these videos, presumably edited from the church’s DVD.
But now Reverend Wright has embarked on what seems to be a speaking tour. Now the Reverend has complete control over his own words, even whether to say anything. And he is speaking up a storm, saying things that African Americans are perhaps like to agree with or at least understand, but that may chill or annoy white voters. Louis Farakhan (spelling?) is one of the great thinkers of the 20th and 21st centuries. The US government is using AIDS to try to wipe out African Americans. Now, I would give Mr Farakhan his due, as a highly successful leader, but I suspect there are a lot of people who are as intelligent, and no small number more intelligent than him. And while the US government has a shameful record in using African Americans as guinea pigs in some experiments, the notion that the government is both smart and stupid enough to use Aids as a weapon against anyone is sheer fantasy.
So of course Mr. Obama did not say anything until now. He has to respond now, and he responded in a way that leaves no room for doubt, that makes it clear Obama shares the values of his white constituents with regard to African American radicalism. Some of his African American supporters may be a little disappointed, but they likely understand why Obama has to say that.
I had thought the first African American President might be someone like Colin Powell or Condi Rice. Like Margaret Thatcher, who did not have to prove anything about whether she was tough enough for the job, so too a Colin Powell would never be mistaken for a radical. But Barack Obama surprised me. It did not seem to be an issue with him. He convinced enough people that the number of people who felt the country was ready for a black President went from 50% to 75% over the last year (according to Meet the Press). But now the Clinton’s are trying to tie labels on him, radical, Muslim, weak. Now, I don’t think Obama’s lead of maybe a hundred and fifty delegates is a sufficient reason for Hillary to drop out of the race. But I am beginning to be convinced that her willingness to do the Republicans work for them and go negative is a reason for her to drop out.
I guess we’ll see.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Happy Earth Day
Happy Earth Day.
It is actually an accident that I rode my bike from the house today. My wife insisted I wait for the plumber this morning. I had taken my car to the mechanic yesterday with a lit “check engine” light. My mechanics, though, are pretty busy, and did not look at it yesterday. So with no car, I grabbed the folding bike at 10:00 and took off for the bus. I lasted all the way to Centre and Aiken (from Negley and Hampton) on the 71A, before it looked like too many people were going to get on, and make exiting difficult. That’s better than previously on that bus. The bike does tuck neatly under the front seats (where we are supposed to let the elderly and infirm sit). But it has to come out again, and that is a problem if too many people are on the bus. So we’ll see what the future holds.
It is actually an accident that I rode my bike from the house today. My wife insisted I wait for the plumber this morning. I had taken my car to the mechanic yesterday with a lit “check engine” light. My mechanics, though, are pretty busy, and did not look at it yesterday. So with no car, I grabbed the folding bike at 10:00 and took off for the bus. I lasted all the way to Centre and Aiken (from Negley and Hampton) on the 71A, before it looked like too many people were going to get on, and make exiting difficult. That’s better than previously on that bus. The bike does tuck neatly under the front seats (where we are supposed to let the elderly and infirm sit). But it has to come out again, and that is a problem if too many people are on the bus. So we’ll see what the future holds.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Last comment before we pull the lev ... push the button.
John MacIntire (whom I probably ought to link to) makes a pretty good point in his latest post. Since we are all pretty sure Obama is going to win the nomination, if you are voting for Mrs. Clinton, you might ask yourself why? Are we sure Obama is going to win? Well, even when he lost primaries, he didn't lose by much. Apparently the Clinton's are pretty sure of a win in Puerto Rico. But when Obama does try to campaign in places, he is able to narrow Mrs Clinton's lead. So she didn't win by that much in California and New York, or even New Hampshire. Basically he is not likely to lose his lead, and probably will improve on it before the convention.
So do we think she should stay in the race? Well, we know that if she does, its not issues she is going to be talking about. She will be looking for any mud to sling at him, and he will be forced to do the same. Which will then happen again in the fall, when the Republicans go after the Democratic nominee.
MacIntire's point, in other words, is that a vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain. And while I might not agree totally with that, there is a point there. Pundits keep talking about democrats coming together at the convention. Maybe we should do that now.
So do we think she should stay in the race? Well, we know that if she does, its not issues she is going to be talking about. She will be looking for any mud to sling at him, and he will be forced to do the same. Which will then happen again in the fall, when the Republicans go after the Democratic nominee.
MacIntire's point, in other words, is that a vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain. And while I might not agree totally with that, there is a point there. Pundits keep talking about democrats coming together at the convention. Maybe we should do that now.
When good answers go bad
Chad Herman of TWM commented about how Obama’s answer in the debate about Iranian nuclear weapons was so much less satisfying than Clinton’s. I think it was Washington Week in Review that picked up on this same answer, albeit from Mrs. Clinton. They noted, as did Mr. Hermann, that Mrs. Clinton’s answer indicated an expansion of US policy in the Middle East. They went on to say what a bad idea that would be. Mrs. Clinton was talking about intervening in conflicts between Iran and anyone else. Presumably that would also include conflicts between other players in the region, such as if Libya and Egypt have a dustup. The problem is that the Middle East has seen what happens when we get involved in the area. Under Bush we brought just enough firepower to further wreck Afghanistan and Iraq, but not enough resources to fix either country. Granted, we did bring enough resources to make corrupt officials fabulously wealthy, but we better skip over that.
On this particular point of distinction, I would say Obama gave a reasoned response about how he wouldn’t let Iran get nukes in the first place, but if they did he would deal with the situation at the time based on the circumstances. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was talking about expanding the US’s role in the region at a time when our popularity is at an all time low. I don’t see how that could be good for us, at least not until we take steps to re-establish our credibility.
On this particular point of distinction, I would say Obama gave a reasoned response about how he wouldn’t let Iran get nukes in the first place, but if they did he would deal with the situation at the time based on the circumstances. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was talking about expanding the US’s role in the region at a time when our popularity is at an all time low. I don’t see how that could be good for us, at least not until we take steps to re-establish our credibility.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Barden and Obama
I had wrote that I would wait until Monday to post again, but stuff has happened I want to say things about. So first, for the third time, let me direct you to Nicholas Kristoff’s Thursday column and the comments.
I noticed that no one in the Burghospree picked up on Don Barden dropping his pledge of $3 million dollars assistance for the Hill. I guess that was because the story broke on a Friday afternoon and everything else happening around town is more interesting. I was surprised that the One Hill people were even moderately sympathetic to Barden. I’ve lost track of who all was supposed to commit money to the community, I just remember that it is not going to be the City or the County, and now, apparently, Don Barden.
I kind of like David Brooks. As a conservative, he seems more human than many. But Brooks is capable of being a partisan whenever he chooses. In his last few columns he has bee savaging Barack Obama, and did so again today on the “Meet the Press”. One of his complaints is that Obama made a promise to remove all the troops from Iraq in 16 months, in the debate. It fell to Michelle Norris, who was also on MTP, to point out that Hillary Clinton made the same promise in the debate, albeit in her own words. Brooks had praised Obama earlier in the year, and now acts disillusioned, as if he might ever have voted for or supported Obama.
I will say this, it seems to me that Obama is getting frustrated and tired in this campaign. He is acting human. But we always knew, or should have known, that Obama is human. He is intelligent, a good, occasionally great speaker and seem perfectly capable to be the President. But he slips sometimes. He slipped in using the words “bitter” and “cling to” in San Francisco. I personally think he was frustrated that he had not made more progress in Pennsylvania. He may have done it intentionally, to give the media a story about how his gaffe cost him the win in Pennsylvania, but he was only back 5%, or something. But that would be a silly calculation, and it seems easier just to be careful and try hard.
A troll on 2PoliticalJunkies gave an address for a couple of YouTube snippets. In those clips, you see Obama speaking, mentions Hillary Clinton, and then casually reached up and scratches his cheek. With his middle finger. We know this happened and the audience was the intended target because they give a Fox Sitcom type of whooooo. Like I said, Obama human and probably frustrated. And showing that he lives in Chicago.
I still intend to vote for him.
I noticed that no one in the Burghospree picked up on Don Barden dropping his pledge of $3 million dollars assistance for the Hill. I guess that was because the story broke on a Friday afternoon and everything else happening around town is more interesting. I was surprised that the One Hill people were even moderately sympathetic to Barden. I’ve lost track of who all was supposed to commit money to the community, I just remember that it is not going to be the City or the County, and now, apparently, Don Barden.
I kind of like David Brooks. As a conservative, he seems more human than many. But Brooks is capable of being a partisan whenever he chooses. In his last few columns he has bee savaging Barack Obama, and did so again today on the “Meet the Press”. One of his complaints is that Obama made a promise to remove all the troops from Iraq in 16 months, in the debate. It fell to Michelle Norris, who was also on MTP, to point out that Hillary Clinton made the same promise in the debate, albeit in her own words. Brooks had praised Obama earlier in the year, and now acts disillusioned, as if he might ever have voted for or supported Obama.
I will say this, it seems to me that Obama is getting frustrated and tired in this campaign. He is acting human. But we always knew, or should have known, that Obama is human. He is intelligent, a good, occasionally great speaker and seem perfectly capable to be the President. But he slips sometimes. He slipped in using the words “bitter” and “cling to” in San Francisco. I personally think he was frustrated that he had not made more progress in Pennsylvania. He may have done it intentionally, to give the media a story about how his gaffe cost him the win in Pennsylvania, but he was only back 5%, or something. But that would be a silly calculation, and it seems easier just to be careful and try hard.
A troll on 2PoliticalJunkies gave an address for a couple of YouTube snippets. In those clips, you see Obama speaking, mentions Hillary Clinton, and then casually reached up and scratches his cheek. With his middle finger. We know this happened and the audience was the intended target because they give a Fox Sitcom type of whooooo. Like I said, Obama human and probably frustrated. And showing that he lives in Chicago.
I still intend to vote for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
