Jack Kelly thinks you are stupid. He wants you to blame Barack Obama for gas prices, based largely on the notion he thinks Obama is arrogant. What was such a desirable quality in George Bush is held against Barack Obama. Of course, George Bush's arrogance manifested itself in swaggering and lying to the American people about why the sons of the poor were being sent to their deaths, while Kelly's anecdotal example of Obama's arrogance could also be seen as suggesting Americans could take responsibility for their own foolish choices. But Kelly is counting on your stupidity.
Kelly blames Obama for high gas prices for three ways: the declining value of the dollar, turmoil in the Middle East and because Obama has restricted new drilling. These reasons show a pretty profound lack of understanding of how economics work, and/or Kelly's general contempt for his readership.
A declining dollar could have an effect on the price of oil, but it is worthwhile to remember that cheap dollars make our exports cheaper. Our economy is supposed to be recovering, and a strong export sector would mean jobs, including for poor people of color without high school degrees. It is a helluva thing to want the unemployed to suffer so that middle class and wealthy people who bought SUV's can continue to waste gas without paying for (pushing the costs onto our grandchildren).
As for the turmoil in the Middle East, I have one word for that: Iraq.
And thinking about drilling domestically, Kelly leaves out a crucial step, the refining process. That has as big an impact, maybe more so, as the supply of oil. there has been something like two requests (to the EPA) for new refineries in the last thirty five years, although there are requests for modification and expansion of existing refineries. The refineries we have can adjust the capacity they at which they operate, and apparently are not, right now, operating at as high a capacity as they could, while apparently crude oil inventories have been rising (piling up?). Of course, refineries have maintenance cycles and unexpected outages, but it is at least as an important factor as drilling in setting the supply.
And of course, all Kelly is writing about is supply. He wants cheap gas delivered to us on a silver platter. He doesn't care how difficult oil is to extract, what environmental, social, political or future costs there might be in drilling for oil (or converting oil sands or "gasifying" coal). Kelly doesn't think about the other component in gas prices, demand. To me, two times that gas prices have fallen are important to look at. First, when highway speeds were reduced to 55, there were relatively significant drops in US oil consumption. And of course the last time gas prices spiked this high, demand fell considerably, and not long after gas prices fell. Which means that if, when those prices fell, we could had imposed a gas tax that could have kept demand reduced. We could have given tax rebates when people file taxes, large ones for the poor and smaller ones for the middle class, to ease the "pain at the pump". But that opportunity might have slipped from our grasp, as the prices have risen. My personal feeling is that oil speculators are behind the current price spike, and I don't know if the speculators will keep the prices high this time. So instead of lowering demand by intentionally raising prices in a controlled fashion and returning a large chunk if not all the money to consumers, we are allowing the oil companies to pick our pockets. If fact, by driving 70 mph, we are encouraging the oil companies to take our money (even while they pay no taxes).
Jack Kelly thinks you are stupid.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Kelly plays the Nazi card
I don't know how many wars are going on right now, beyond the three we are involved in. There have been wars going on since there has been writing to record them. Yet which war, which theater and army did Jack Kelly today choose use as a metaphor for the state of unions today? World War II, the Russian front and the Wehrmact. Kelly chose to compare American unions, public service unions including the police, fire personal and emergency medical technicians who ran into the twin towers to the Nazis. Actually, it must be a delicious comparison, the Nazis and communists killing each other.
All right, so maybe I am going a bit overboard there. But in all of Kelly's column today, he never once mentions that the unions he is talking about include public service unions we used to consider heroes. Police, fire, emergency medical services and teachers. Either we think they are doing important work (sometimes heroic) or not. At the very least, I take exception to comparing police and teachers to Nazis (OK, so I didn't like some of my teachers, but they weren't that bad).
Now, I have admit the collective bargaining model appears to have some problems. Unions have certainly shown the tendency to act in their own interest over their employer, and to some extent to act in the interest of their most senior members over the membership as a whole. This can be particularly problematic when the employer is the taxpayers of a city, county, state or the nation.
That said, I think that if governments, local or national, made promises in the past, even if they were merely passing the buck to the future, we need to honor the promises. They won't last forever. For current public service employees, we do need to transition to defined contribution in health and retirement benefits. And although I am not sure what this would means for collective bargaining, but possibly salaries for public service employees need to be tied in some fashion to local salaries in private industry for people with similar qualifications (in experience and education). Of course, doing that might bring the salaries up for teachers, but if that's fair?
Kelly may be right, that public service unions are in danger of being dismantled, and thus the Democrats may lose a lot of funding. And I guess since Kelly seems to have bought into the Tea Party ideology, he thinks having just one party would be just fine. We could call the party the Nationalist Capitalist party.
Watch out, Sudetenland.
All right, so maybe I am going a bit overboard there. But in all of Kelly's column today, he never once mentions that the unions he is talking about include public service unions we used to consider heroes. Police, fire, emergency medical services and teachers. Either we think they are doing important work (sometimes heroic) or not. At the very least, I take exception to comparing police and teachers to Nazis (OK, so I didn't like some of my teachers, but they weren't that bad).
Now, I have admit the collective bargaining model appears to have some problems. Unions have certainly shown the tendency to act in their own interest over their employer, and to some extent to act in the interest of their most senior members over the membership as a whole. This can be particularly problematic when the employer is the taxpayers of a city, county, state or the nation.
That said, I think that if governments, local or national, made promises in the past, even if they were merely passing the buck to the future, we need to honor the promises. They won't last forever. For current public service employees, we do need to transition to defined contribution in health and retirement benefits. And although I am not sure what this would means for collective bargaining, but possibly salaries for public service employees need to be tied in some fashion to local salaries in private industry for people with similar qualifications (in experience and education). Of course, doing that might bring the salaries up for teachers, but if that's fair?
Kelly may be right, that public service unions are in danger of being dismantled, and thus the Democrats may lose a lot of funding. And I guess since Kelly seems to have bought into the Tea Party ideology, he thinks having just one party would be just fine. We could call the party the Nationalist Capitalist party.
Watch out, Sudetenland.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Earth day 2011 - I burn all three
I freely confess I don't know the history here; is Earth Day always on Good Friday? Seems like it would violate some part of the lib'rul ten Categorical Imperatives (apologies to Kant), like separation of the hated organized religion (as opposed to the disorganized Uni- Uni-'s) from all that is good and sweet in the world. But hey, if we have to celebrate the death of a messiah, might as well celebrate the planet too.
Of course environmentalism has changed somewhat since 1970, when the emphasis was (as I understand it) on pollution, and perhaps somewhat on recycling. Now the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases on the climate have pushed environmentalism towards reducing energy use (to avoid producing those gases by burning fossil fuels). The funny thing about that is that energy use reduction through more efficiency is something that an economist ought to be able to wrap his/her head around. If Compact Fluorescent's use few watts to provide the same light, and last much longer, they save the user a fair bit of money. If hybrids drive much like a regular car, but use half as much gas, they will save you money (eventually). So being a thoughtful consumer of energy means you have more money for other things. Yet environmentalism has successfully been tied to sacrifice (or at least discomfort) by the Republicans. So many people are losing out by not buying into conservation.
I myself burn natural gas to heat my apartment and the water I use, coal (probably) for electricity and oil (gasoline) to get places. My natural gas use will drop to nothing for the summer (the building pays for the hot water heater and the stove's gas). I am already using all CFL's (except for two LED lamps and an incandescent in the fridge), although there is probably more I could do to reduce my electricity usage. As for driving, I drive a hybrid, but I have been driving to work recently. I would like to start taking the bus where possible, and riding a bike when I can otherwise. Perhaps I will share the outcome of these resolutions here. What do you do to reduce?
Of course environmentalism has changed somewhat since 1970, when the emphasis was (as I understand it) on pollution, and perhaps somewhat on recycling. Now the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases on the climate have pushed environmentalism towards reducing energy use (to avoid producing those gases by burning fossil fuels). The funny thing about that is that energy use reduction through more efficiency is something that an economist ought to be able to wrap his/her head around. If Compact Fluorescent's use few watts to provide the same light, and last much longer, they save the user a fair bit of money. If hybrids drive much like a regular car, but use half as much gas, they will save you money (eventually). So being a thoughtful consumer of energy means you have more money for other things. Yet environmentalism has successfully been tied to sacrifice (or at least discomfort) by the Republicans. So many people are losing out by not buying into conservation.
I myself burn natural gas to heat my apartment and the water I use, coal (probably) for electricity and oil (gasoline) to get places. My natural gas use will drop to nothing for the summer (the building pays for the hot water heater and the stove's gas). I am already using all CFL's (except for two LED lamps and an incandescent in the fridge), although there is probably more I could do to reduce my electricity usage. As for driving, I drive a hybrid, but I have been driving to work recently. I would like to start taking the bus where possible, and riding a bike when I can otherwise. Perhaps I will share the outcome of these resolutions here. What do you do to reduce?
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Kelly, Tea Partier ...
So I didn't post last week on Jack Kelly. Although I thought his column lacked any sense of history or circumstance, I found myself somewhat in agreement with the thought that it might be time to leave Afghanistan some time soon (it doesn't look like there is much we can do, short of taking action like replacing Karzai summarily, that will change the equation there).
This week Kelly is using facts to make his accusations. Now, I am not sure the accusations Kelly make are actually legitimate, but I will point out that Glenn Greenwald has made similar accusations. So, I won't take on Kelly line by line; Obama certainly has things of the sort Kelly mentions to answer for.
That said, where I do take issue with Kelly is in his total lack of a historical sense and no sense of perspective about the situation in government. The second Kelly mentions the constitution (as in "Our Constitution permits Congress to delegate ..., but makes no provision for waivers ..."), I think back to George Bush (or more accurately his advisers) advancing the "Unitary Executive" theory of the Presidency. Complaining about waivers for the healthcare bill ("Obamacare" as Mr Kelly so disrespectfully and tellingly puts it) make me think about Cheney's secret meetings with energy industry executives, and the mineral rights essentially given away to industry during the Bush administration.
Kelly's references to the constitution and his accusations that Obama has broken the law are, to me, clear signs that Kelly is in the bag for the Tea Party. This kind of blatant pandering is offensive to me, to present issues as facts when in fact they are actually in support of an agenda. To only complain when a Democrat is in the White House is reprehensible. And before anyone accuses me of the same thing, I would point to my linking to and talking up Greenwald. Also I will express my hope that Obama will make good on some of the things he said in his speech on Wednesday. Let's repeal at least the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
This week Kelly is using facts to make his accusations. Now, I am not sure the accusations Kelly make are actually legitimate, but I will point out that Glenn Greenwald has made similar accusations. So, I won't take on Kelly line by line; Obama certainly has things of the sort Kelly mentions to answer for.
That said, where I do take issue with Kelly is in his total lack of a historical sense and no sense of perspective about the situation in government. The second Kelly mentions the constitution (as in "Our Constitution permits Congress to delegate ..., but makes no provision for waivers ..."), I think back to George Bush (or more accurately his advisers) advancing the "Unitary Executive" theory of the Presidency. Complaining about waivers for the healthcare bill ("Obamacare" as Mr Kelly so disrespectfully and tellingly puts it) make me think about Cheney's secret meetings with energy industry executives, and the mineral rights essentially given away to industry during the Bush administration.
Kelly's references to the constitution and his accusations that Obama has broken the law are, to me, clear signs that Kelly is in the bag for the Tea Party. This kind of blatant pandering is offensive to me, to present issues as facts when in fact they are actually in support of an agenda. To only complain when a Democrat is in the White House is reprehensible. And before anyone accuses me of the same thing, I would point to my linking to and talking up Greenwald. Also I will express my hope that Obama will make good on some of the things he said in his speech on Wednesday. Let's repeal at least the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Kelly, monotonous ...
Today's Jack Kelly column is essentially a retread of last week's, although Kelly notices Obama spoke on Monday to the nation. Kelly's take-away from Monday's speech was for his eyes to glaze over and hallucinate George Bush. By contrast, on Tuesday or Wednesday Jon Stewart's Daily Show had a much more sophisticated analysis, where Stewart noticed both the soaring rhetoric and the qualifying phrases, and declared that Obama was actually being relatively honest with us, more so than any President in the last fifty years (OK, he didn't include Nixon, Johnson or Kennedy, I guess because we are pretty clear about their honesty). Plus Stewart ended the segment noticing a Palin unforced error ("sqermish"?).
Kelly took pains to say that Obama sounded a lot like the most recent George Bush, until he quotes a former Bush speech writer who says that Obama did something no other President has ever done. In between, Kelly references himself (apparently we weren't paying attention, since we hadn't stormed the White House in the last week).
Kelly also says this "It's easier to get into wars than out of them. Regime change in Iraq took about three weeks. It was the unforeseen aftermath that took eight years, thousands of lives and nearly a trillion dollars.". Incredible. Did Kelly say anything like this in 2003? Or did he blindly buy into Condelezza Rice's logic "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."? And before you say that Iraq had not occurred yet, I will say we could look at the Vietnam War, in which US involvement started in a limited fashion during the Eisenhower administration (1955).
Kelly is actually right that the US is headed into uncharted territory. Qaddafi has been in power since 1969. 42 years is a long time to have no practice at democracy, and some of the most powerful non governmental organizations in the Middle East are ones we designate as terrorist. Now, maybe Qaddafi would have slaughtered thousands if we had waited one more day, although we have to admit Obama and company waited for the UN Security Council to deliberate. Is that better or worse than what bush did? We have to admit that Obama has started this process without really having a plan for what might happen after. Is it better or worse that Obama has dragged the UN into this (although I gather Bush's initial "coalition of the willing" was larger).
The thing is, Kelly is not really helping us see the nuances. If the reader has to work it out for him/her self, then they have the option to not work it out, so Kelly is not doing his readers any favors. Consider the difference in this, this, this, this, or this. A liberal who admits to have been a supporter (he thinks Obama is smarter than McCain) but now is examining all the issues through the prism of the constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court might be a better critic than conservative whose view of the world apparently needs to be shoehorned into Tea Party doctrine. It is disappointing that the PG could have intelligent criticism of the President, or it can have Jack Kelly.
Kelly took pains to say that Obama sounded a lot like the most recent George Bush, until he quotes a former Bush speech writer who says that Obama did something no other President has ever done. In between, Kelly references himself (apparently we weren't paying attention, since we hadn't stormed the White House in the last week).
Kelly also says this "It's easier to get into wars than out of them. Regime change in Iraq took about three weeks. It was the unforeseen aftermath that took eight years, thousands of lives and nearly a trillion dollars.". Incredible. Did Kelly say anything like this in 2003? Or did he blindly buy into Condelezza Rice's logic "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."? And before you say that Iraq had not occurred yet, I will say we could look at the Vietnam War, in which US involvement started in a limited fashion during the Eisenhower administration (1955).
Kelly is actually right that the US is headed into uncharted territory. Qaddafi has been in power since 1969. 42 years is a long time to have no practice at democracy, and some of the most powerful non governmental organizations in the Middle East are ones we designate as terrorist. Now, maybe Qaddafi would have slaughtered thousands if we had waited one more day, although we have to admit Obama and company waited for the UN Security Council to deliberate. Is that better or worse than what bush did? We have to admit that Obama has started this process without really having a plan for what might happen after. Is it better or worse that Obama has dragged the UN into this (although I gather Bush's initial "coalition of the willing" was larger).
The thing is, Kelly is not really helping us see the nuances. If the reader has to work it out for him/her self, then they have the option to not work it out, so Kelly is not doing his readers any favors. Consider the difference in this, this, this, this, or this. A liberal who admits to have been a supporter (he thinks Obama is smarter than McCain) but now is examining all the issues through the prism of the constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court might be a better critic than conservative whose view of the world apparently needs to be shoehorned into Tea Party doctrine. It is disappointing that the PG could have intelligent criticism of the President, or it can have Jack Kelly.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
We need real wars, fought by real warriors ...
I swear I had not seen Jack Kelly's column today when I wrote my last post yesterday. I had been thinking about that post for a week or so, after hearing about Helene Cooper's article in the NYTimes about the role Rice, Power and Hillary Clinton in persuading Obama to take action in Libya. But it is ironic that some of the facets of this intervention I thought Obama could be praised for are ones that irritate Kelly.
Apparently Kelly wants wars to conducted as serious business, with only the most serious of commitments. I guess he wants to see proper troop deployments, ground forces commanded by American officers marching into Tripoli (as I believe American Marines did a couple of hundred years ago). I have to say I think the subtext of kelly's column is saying that while liberals might have complained about George Bush's unilateral approach in Iraq in 2003, our actions in Libya show the downside to a multilateral approach (or say I think Kelly is saying).
Except that Iraq is not going particularly well, even eight years later. The government is still shaky, and it remains to be seen whether we can ever leave. One thing that might be keeping us there is the possibility Iran might try to move in if we did leave.
Kelly is annoyed that Obama has not stated unambiguously that Qaddafi must be removed. But I point again back to our actions in Iraq. While one could say that the goals for combat operations were pretty clear (capture the country), our over all goals in Iraq suffered from the lies told be the administration, such as about weapons of mass destruction. I think that ultimately Obama will emerge from this Libyan action more popular abroad and at home.
Kelly seems upset that the group contributing to the no fly zone in Libya is made up of volunteer nations. Except that in the real world that is the way things should work, and that generally seems to be both be and have been the case. George Bush did call the allies for his invasion and occupation of Iraq the "coalition of the willing". Of course, after it became clear that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and also had nothing to do with 9/11, our allies became less willing quite quickly. It is possible that this time around, our allies will appreciate that Obama is not stretching the truth the way his predecessor did. Of course, events in Libya will follow their own course, but at least our allies are not likely to complain about how Obama mislead them.
On the other hand, Mark Bittman has a food manifesto in the editorial section well worth reasoning.
Apparently Kelly wants wars to conducted as serious business, with only the most serious of commitments. I guess he wants to see proper troop deployments, ground forces commanded by American officers marching into Tripoli (as I believe American Marines did a couple of hundred years ago). I have to say I think the subtext of kelly's column is saying that while liberals might have complained about George Bush's unilateral approach in Iraq in 2003, our actions in Libya show the downside to a multilateral approach (or say I think Kelly is saying).
Except that Iraq is not going particularly well, even eight years later. The government is still shaky, and it remains to be seen whether we can ever leave. One thing that might be keeping us there is the possibility Iran might try to move in if we did leave.
Kelly is annoyed that Obama has not stated unambiguously that Qaddafi must be removed. But I point again back to our actions in Iraq. While one could say that the goals for combat operations were pretty clear (capture the country), our over all goals in Iraq suffered from the lies told be the administration, such as about weapons of mass destruction. I think that ultimately Obama will emerge from this Libyan action more popular abroad and at home.
Kelly seems upset that the group contributing to the no fly zone in Libya is made up of volunteer nations. Except that in the real world that is the way things should work, and that generally seems to be both be and have been the case. George Bush did call the allies for his invasion and occupation of Iraq the "coalition of the willing". Of course, after it became clear that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and also had nothing to do with 9/11, our allies became less willing quite quickly. It is possible that this time around, our allies will appreciate that Obama is not stretching the truth the way his predecessor did. Of course, events in Libya will follow their own course, but at least our allies are not likely to complain about how Obama mislead them.
On the other hand, Mark Bittman has a food manifesto in the editorial section well worth reasoning.
Obama and Libya
It is interesting watching the media address Obama's handling of the Libya situation. Obama's stated reason for getting the UN resolution that established the "no fly" zone was to prevent a massacre of Libyan citizens, although Obama has also said quite plainly that he would like to see Qaddafi go. The genesis of the desire to prevent a humanitarian disaster was rooted in the Clinton administration's experience in Rwanda. To which I say, fair enough. I have heard pundits kind of smirk and wonder how many people would be killed if Qaddafi crushed this rebellion. In response, I wonder how many people have to die before we decide we should do something.
The other interesting thing is that (again) pundits are eagerly expressing their doubt that the US can a) turn over leadership of this operation to some other country's general and b) that the US will not have the overwhelmingly largest number of fighters and bombers in the operation, and that the US will not send troops to Libya. It is certainly true that while other countries could send a few fighters and/or soldiers to Libya or anywhere else in the world, probably only the US can send major invasion forces and aircraft anywhere, with an almost certain guarantee of being able to win any fight. But we are also the only country who could provide the logistical support for a UN operation made up of troops and/or aircraft from other countries. In other words, when our pundits (and Republicans) ask why the US always has to be the country providing 99% of the troops, this could be our chance to show we don't.
The story in the NYTimes was that Susan Rice and Samantha Power (who has written on genocide) first convinced Hillary Clinton and then the three of them convinced President Obama to work toward the UN resolution and subsequent "no fly" zone and bombing. Rice and Secretary Clinton were both fairly close to the Rwanda situation, which likely left a bad taste in their mouths. This was a chance to rework the limited interventions tried during the Clinton years, to find a formula that produces results without getting Americans killed.
Personally I find myself persuaded by the notion of America as the refueling tanker provider, making it possible for French and English fighters and bombers to operate over Libya. Will this limited intervention succeed in toppling Qaddafi, and if so, will we like his replacements? Those are more complicated questions, but I don't think acceptable answers would be more likely if we committed more American soldiers and/or pilots (see Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq).
The other interesting thing is that (again) pundits are eagerly expressing their doubt that the US can a) turn over leadership of this operation to some other country's general and b) that the US will not have the overwhelmingly largest number of fighters and bombers in the operation, and that the US will not send troops to Libya. It is certainly true that while other countries could send a few fighters and/or soldiers to Libya or anywhere else in the world, probably only the US can send major invasion forces and aircraft anywhere, with an almost certain guarantee of being able to win any fight. But we are also the only country who could provide the logistical support for a UN operation made up of troops and/or aircraft from other countries. In other words, when our pundits (and Republicans) ask why the US always has to be the country providing 99% of the troops, this could be our chance to show we don't.
The story in the NYTimes was that Susan Rice and Samantha Power (who has written on genocide) first convinced Hillary Clinton and then the three of them convinced President Obama to work toward the UN resolution and subsequent "no fly" zone and bombing. Rice and Secretary Clinton were both fairly close to the Rwanda situation, which likely left a bad taste in their mouths. This was a chance to rework the limited interventions tried during the Clinton years, to find a formula that produces results without getting Americans killed.
Personally I find myself persuaded by the notion of America as the refueling tanker provider, making it possible for French and English fighters and bombers to operate over Libya. Will this limited intervention succeed in toppling Qaddafi, and if so, will we like his replacements? Those are more complicated questions, but I don't think acceptable answers would be more likely if we committed more American soldiers and/or pilots (see Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq).
Thursday, March 24, 2011
signs of wind ....
Last Friday I wandered over to the Waterworks, had a salad at the the Giant Eagle salad bar (which I suspect is the cause of the stomach flu I had Saturday) and noticed something new (to me) at the (relatively) new Eat N Park at the Waterworks: a wind turbine. The thing was spinning up a storm while I sat eating and watching it. It is one of those vertical turbines that is much safer for bats and birds (I believe). This is the sort of thing that could be installed on houses, apartment buildings and commercial building with relative ease. However the debate is now about whether to have nuclear power (which I suspect will involve corporate subsidies), not whether to help people install wind turbines.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Kelly today: bland yet also silly
I have to say that Jack Kelly's column today is actually relatively reasonable. He basically says that for Democrats to successfully recall three Republican state senators, much less the eight they are hoping for, will be very difficult. Apparently it is pretty rare when more than one legislator has been recalled in the US. Fair enough.
Kelly also tells us that (self described) conservatives outnumber (self described) liberals in Wisconsin. As far as I can see that is essentially true. But what Kelly doesn't mention is that (self described) moderates and what ever other category out number both liberals and conservatives. So obviously in a recall it will matter most what the moderates do. Kelly thinks that the passions of February will have faded by June, and he may be right. A good ad campaign from the unions might make the difference, but that is hoping that political operatives in Wisconsin will luck into an Obama effect that Democrats were unable to create last November.
Of course, at the end of his column, Kelly himself over reaches, suggesting that Wisconsin's vote signals the coming end of public sector unions, and perhaps the end of the Democratic party and liberalism as a whole. I suspect Republicans/conservatives will be more careful than that, although the loose cannon Tea Party might try to push things.
Kelly also tells us that (self described) conservatives outnumber (self described) liberals in Wisconsin. As far as I can see that is essentially true. But what Kelly doesn't mention is that (self described) moderates and what ever other category out number both liberals and conservatives. So obviously in a recall it will matter most what the moderates do. Kelly thinks that the passions of February will have faded by June, and he may be right. A good ad campaign from the unions might make the difference, but that is hoping that political operatives in Wisconsin will luck into an Obama effect that Democrats were unable to create last November.
Of course, at the end of his column, Kelly himself over reaches, suggesting that Wisconsin's vote signals the coming end of public sector unions, and perhaps the end of the Democratic party and liberalism as a whole. I suspect Republicans/conservatives will be more careful than that, although the loose cannon Tea Party might try to push things.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Only the "right" opinions ...
Today Jack Kelly is upset that NPR and PBS still exist. I suspect that he and other conservatives have long held this desire, but the latest impetus is James O'Keefe's lstest (edited) "sting" operation. We are shocked to find that when NPR fund raising executives think they are in private, they have opinions!!! In this case, the objectionable opinions are about the Tea Party and Republican voters.
Kelly once again betrays what I think can only be seen as Tea Party influenced view of the world with this statement: "NPR listeners and CPB viewers are mostly upper-middle-class people who can afford to pay for their mass media of choice." Once again rich liberals are stealing the public's money to get the elitist entertainment fix. What should we think about Republicans/conservatives demanding tax cuts (almost always and almost totally) for wealthy business owners, which I (in a Jack Kelly fashion) will suggest are mostly Republicans/conservatives. What should we think about Republicans/conservatives demanding cuts in funding for the poor in heating assistance, education and other areas, and forcing public employees such as teachers to take pay cuts and taking away their right to collective bargaining? What should we think about Republicans/conservatives demanding that oil companies continue to receive billions in subsidies, even while the price of gas goes through the roof? Apparently Republicans/conservatives don't believe in shared sacrifice.
Kelly wants us to believe that a) NPR employees are diehard liberals (not to say communists) and b) that NPR employees let their private opinions influence their public reporting. Now, I think it is reasonable to say that an organization that is funded even partially by the government should not have a political agenda, but I would say that NPR and PBS meet that criteria. I will say that NPR and PBS do run stories about the poor and disenfranchised sometimes. Do those stories, in and of themselves, indicate a political agenda? I would say not, and I will say that private sector news outlets are unlikely to run such stories, for fear of upsetting advertisers and/or corporate owners. Now I won't say that the Wall Street Journal (particularly editorial board), National Review and Fox News are the same as a partially funded government operation, but I will point out that at least Fox News claims to be "Fair and Balanced". Glenn Beck? Bill O'Reilly? Oh, they're "entertainment". Maybe you can't make an equivalency here, but I have to say O'Keefe seems to indicate that when the tables are reversed (so to speak), Republicans/conservatives have no trouble connecting dots. Given politicians like Michele Bachmann and Peter King, I can see why Republicans/conservatives would want to eliminate even unbiased reporting like the sort that I believe NPR/PBS provides.
One final thought, Kelly slips in at the end of his column a shot at Obama in complaining that the deficit in 2007 was much smaller than our current deficits. I would point out that Republicans/conservatives also were in charge of regulating financial companies, which I think they failed spectacularly at. Obama's first fiscal year had the stimulus (which was a third tax cuts, although for the wrong (poor) people). Trying to fix the mess the Republicans/conservatives caused has made the economy worse. That Republicans/conservatives have shown a huge lack of patriotism and accused Obama of being a Kenyan, a Muslim and a communist, encouraging American business not to hire employees and/or outsourcing jobs. Of course, Kelly doesn't even care about jobs (like a typical Tea Partier/Republican/conservative).
Kelly once again betrays what I think can only be seen as Tea Party influenced view of the world with this statement: "NPR listeners and CPB viewers are mostly upper-middle-class people who can afford to pay for their mass media of choice." Once again rich liberals are stealing the public's money to get the elitist entertainment fix. What should we think about Republicans/conservatives demanding tax cuts (almost always and almost totally) for wealthy business owners, which I (in a Jack Kelly fashion) will suggest are mostly Republicans/conservatives. What should we think about Republicans/conservatives demanding cuts in funding for the poor in heating assistance, education and other areas, and forcing public employees such as teachers to take pay cuts and taking away their right to collective bargaining? What should we think about Republicans/conservatives demanding that oil companies continue to receive billions in subsidies, even while the price of gas goes through the roof? Apparently Republicans/conservatives don't believe in shared sacrifice.
Kelly wants us to believe that a) NPR employees are diehard liberals (not to say communists) and b) that NPR employees let their private opinions influence their public reporting. Now, I think it is reasonable to say that an organization that is funded even partially by the government should not have a political agenda, but I would say that NPR and PBS meet that criteria. I will say that NPR and PBS do run stories about the poor and disenfranchised sometimes. Do those stories, in and of themselves, indicate a political agenda? I would say not, and I will say that private sector news outlets are unlikely to run such stories, for fear of upsetting advertisers and/or corporate owners. Now I won't say that the Wall Street Journal (particularly editorial board), National Review and Fox News are the same as a partially funded government operation, but I will point out that at least Fox News claims to be "Fair and Balanced". Glenn Beck? Bill O'Reilly? Oh, they're "entertainment". Maybe you can't make an equivalency here, but I have to say O'Keefe seems to indicate that when the tables are reversed (so to speak), Republicans/conservatives have no trouble connecting dots. Given politicians like Michele Bachmann and Peter King, I can see why Republicans/conservatives would want to eliminate even unbiased reporting like the sort that I believe NPR/PBS provides.
One final thought, Kelly slips in at the end of his column a shot at Obama in complaining that the deficit in 2007 was much smaller than our current deficits. I would point out that Republicans/conservatives also were in charge of regulating financial companies, which I think they failed spectacularly at. Obama's first fiscal year had the stimulus (which was a third tax cuts, although for the wrong (poor) people). Trying to fix the mess the Republicans/conservatives caused has made the economy worse. That Republicans/conservatives have shown a huge lack of patriotism and accused Obama of being a Kenyan, a Muslim and a communist, encouraging American business not to hire employees and/or outsourcing jobs. Of course, Kelly doesn't even care about jobs (like a typical Tea Partier/Republican/conservative).
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Observations ... gas prices ...
To get out of the Jack Kelly rut I am in, I thought I would look at some other issues that Instead of responding to someone else's writing, I want to comment on the world around (mostly).
So last time I looked, the Shell station on the corner was at $3.55 per gallon for regular. It has gone up, what, twenty cents or more in the last week or so. Since Libya had only a small percentage of the world oil market (although it apparently may have huge reserves), it seem unlikely that actual supply shortages account for the rise in Like 2008, speculation seems to be the cause of this increase.
I have long advocated European levels of taxation on gas. I believe that a system could have been set up to transfer maybe five or six hundred dollars back (from the gas tax revenues) to people whose income is below the US median (or some other number designed to keep from punishing the poor) as part of a tax refund. Thus, the higher price at the pump would have made people think twice about unnecessary driving, but the poor would not have suffered. However, if the price continues to rise on its own, we may soon reach European gas prices without having their taxes.
When I had suggested taxes at European levels, some conservatives have suggested they would be delighted to see that, hoping it would undo Obama and other Democrats in 2012. Now we say those prices, but we can be sure that the Republicans will blame Obama anyway.
One thing I find interesting is that US car companies had decided to start offering more fuel efficient cars about when Obama was elected. I guess they thought that Obama and the new Democratic majority would mandate stringent new fuel standards. In fact, most car companies have models sold in Europe which get better still mileage, which might be offered in the US as a last resort (although it does not look like this will happen). But I am fascinated by the new Ford Fiesta and the Chevy Cruze Eco, not to mention the Fusion hybrid (and of course the foreigners like the new Honda Insight). The non hybrids that eke out high mileage on the highway don't do nearly so well in the city, where many of us do a lot of our driving. I will say that obviously the people who live in the ex-urbs do quite a lot of highway driving, but except for the few who choose hybrids, I can't see ex-urb dwellers driving Cruzes or Fiestas. They are more SUV types.
Meanwhile, the cheap Cruze and fiesta may well be the choice for less wealthy urban residents, which is unfortunate, since they will get less than optimal mileage. By contrast, the relatively cheap Honda Insight would be a great choice for a city car, since it gets almost as good of mileage in the city as it gets on the highway. Pity the American hybrid sedans, the Volt and the Fusion, while getting good mileage, are expensive and big.
There is alternatives to car travel worth considering. We don't and won't have high speed for some time to come, and even if we do get, it will be designed like airports, with stations far from neighborhoods. But for day to day travel, if we choose to live in the city, where apartments are much more energy efficient. Often, we can walk to stores or work (I am that lucky). Or we can take public transportation (light rail or more often buses), or ride a bike. On that score there are some interesting alternatives. I like electric bikes mostly because there is a good chance you can arrive at your destination less sweaty. Bikes with lithium batteries have come down in price in the last three or four years (the time frame I have been looking at them). The lithium batteries are lighter (which is nice but not that important), hold a bigger charge and thus have a longer range, and do not need to be recharged immediately after use. This last point makes the bike more than just a commuter (to be recharged at work, and then immediately after returning home). Instead, the bike can also be used to visit friends or for light shopping trips. That's why I really like any bike I buy to have a rear rack, that you hang various types of panniers from. Walmart offers three models of bikes from Currie Technologies that would meet the needs of commuters as well as those who might stop at a store or a friends some time. I believe the two higher levels of models at Walmart are last year's models, and will not last forever. Meanwhile, Currie has a new model: the Skyline for eight hundred. I hope it has provisions for a rear rack. This is the cheapest price for an electric bike with a lithium battery I have seen from a manufacturer.
Well, those were my thoughts.
So last time I looked, the Shell station on the corner was at $3.55 per gallon for regular. It has gone up, what, twenty cents or more in the last week or so. Since Libya had only a small percentage of the world oil market (although it apparently may have huge reserves), it seem unlikely that actual supply shortages account for the rise in Like 2008, speculation seems to be the cause of this increase.
I have long advocated European levels of taxation on gas. I believe that a system could have been set up to transfer maybe five or six hundred dollars back (from the gas tax revenues) to people whose income is below the US median (or some other number designed to keep from punishing the poor) as part of a tax refund. Thus, the higher price at the pump would have made people think twice about unnecessary driving, but the poor would not have suffered. However, if the price continues to rise on its own, we may soon reach European gas prices without having their taxes.
When I had suggested taxes at European levels, some conservatives have suggested they would be delighted to see that, hoping it would undo Obama and other Democrats in 2012. Now we say those prices, but we can be sure that the Republicans will blame Obama anyway.
One thing I find interesting is that US car companies had decided to start offering more fuel efficient cars about when Obama was elected. I guess they thought that Obama and the new Democratic majority would mandate stringent new fuel standards. In fact, most car companies have models sold in Europe which get better still mileage, which might be offered in the US as a last resort (although it does not look like this will happen). But I am fascinated by the new Ford Fiesta and the Chevy Cruze Eco, not to mention the Fusion hybrid (and of course the foreigners like the new Honda Insight). The non hybrids that eke out high mileage on the highway don't do nearly so well in the city, where many of us do a lot of our driving. I will say that obviously the people who live in the ex-urbs do quite a lot of highway driving, but except for the few who choose hybrids, I can't see ex-urb dwellers driving Cruzes or Fiestas. They are more SUV types.
Meanwhile, the cheap Cruze and fiesta may well be the choice for less wealthy urban residents, which is unfortunate, since they will get less than optimal mileage. By contrast, the relatively cheap Honda Insight would be a great choice for a city car, since it gets almost as good of mileage in the city as it gets on the highway. Pity the American hybrid sedans, the Volt and the Fusion, while getting good mileage, are expensive and big.
There is alternatives to car travel worth considering. We don't and won't have high speed for some time to come, and even if we do get, it will be designed like airports, with stations far from neighborhoods. But for day to day travel, if we choose to live in the city, where apartments are much more energy efficient. Often, we can walk to stores or work (I am that lucky). Or we can take public transportation (light rail or more often buses), or ride a bike. On that score there are some interesting alternatives. I like electric bikes mostly because there is a good chance you can arrive at your destination less sweaty. Bikes with lithium batteries have come down in price in the last three or four years (the time frame I have been looking at them). The lithium batteries are lighter (which is nice but not that important), hold a bigger charge and thus have a longer range, and do not need to be recharged immediately after use. This last point makes the bike more than just a commuter (to be recharged at work, and then immediately after returning home). Instead, the bike can also be used to visit friends or for light shopping trips. That's why I really like any bike I buy to have a rear rack, that you hang various types of panniers from. Walmart offers three models of bikes from Currie Technologies that would meet the needs of commuters as well as those who might stop at a store or a friends some time. I believe the two higher levels of models at Walmart are last year's models, and will not last forever. Meanwhile, Currie has a new model: the Skyline for eight hundred. I hope it has provisions for a rear rack. This is the cheapest price for an electric bike with a lithium battery I have seen from a manufacturer.
Well, those were my thoughts.
Kelly pushes stereotypes
All Presidents are interesting, I guess. I mean, when things happen, the President reacts or doesn't, and sometimes (perhaps often) the actions of the President (whether reactive or proactive) can have dramatic effects across the country. I think no other single job title consistently has this effect.
That said, I have to say that Jack Kelly's column today is somewhat appropriate, in examining aspects of President Obama's character, specifically his seeming willingness to accommodate republican ideas when considering policy. Of course Obama is a first in at least one respect as President, so I think it is safe to say that his actions would get a special scrutiny. Certainly I remember Pittsburghers were posting to blogs claiming Obama was going to create a secret police force and round up Republicans, and/or claiming that Obama is a socialist and/or a Muslim. Now, I still maintain my private theory that some of the actions Obama takes, he does with at least partially the intention of defying the assumptions made by those Pittsburghers and around half of the rest of the country. But while you might expect he would get praise for, say, the amount of tax cuts he put into the stimulus bill, instead that component of the stimulus is ignored by Republicans/conservatives, and Obama is blamed because the stimulus did not have that big an effect (as also predicted by liberal economists like Paul Krugman). Essentially the accommodations that Obama makes for Republicans (often before a policy is formally proposed) have been reinterpreted, with conservatives crowing that Obama is disappointing his supporters, or weak, or something.
Jack Kelly spends his whole column on that today. In doing so, he pushes some stereotypes that quite frankly I find offensive. Don't get me wrong, some of what he says about Obama I agree with, but some seems to be right out of the Palin/Tea Party playbook. His third paragraph starts with a grammatically bizarre sentence and then has a huge stereotype that is obviously false: "The desire among whites to rid themselves of racial guilt crossed party and ideological lines, but was felt most strongly by white liberals. White liberals could relate to Barack Obama because -- as a product of elite private schools and Ivy League colleges -- he was much like them." Ok, first, does no one edit Kelly's work? Is this writing something the Post Gazette would want to represent them to the country? And second, to be a white liberal, you have to be the product of an "elite" private school and an Ivy League college? Sorry, Bill Peduto, Pat Dowd, or anyone who didn't go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth or Cornell, you can't call yourself a liberal. This sort of bigotry based on education is straight out of the Tea Party's own version of a Declaration of Independence, which stated among other things, (from possibly faulty memory) that they would not be controlled by the educated elites. It reminds of nothing so much as Richard Nixon's railing against the "East Coast intellectual elite".
I won't spend much more (of your) time on this, except to note a few more whoppers. Near the end, Kelly starts to summarize Obama's misdeed, noting that he reneged on a promise to close Guantanamo (true) and on a promise not to raise taxed on the middle class (hunh?). What tax? Without listing a specific, and without noting the taxes lowered for everyone in the stimulus, this sounds like a made up attack, again straight out of the Palin/Bachman/Tea Party playbook.
Then in the next two sentences Kelly gives what is maybe the biggest whopper of them all: "He has even reneged on his implicit promise to be a racial healer. His administration has been the most racially polarizing since Woodrow Wilson's." I won't even dignify that with a comment.
Kelly finishes talking about how the media deceived us about Obama's brilliance (according to Kelly), finishing with "It's time now for them to show us the little man behind the curtain.". Totally silly, and demanding the media explain Obama to his satisfaction is just insulting to Kelly's readers.
That said, I have to say that Jack Kelly's column today is somewhat appropriate, in examining aspects of President Obama's character, specifically his seeming willingness to accommodate republican ideas when considering policy. Of course Obama is a first in at least one respect as President, so I think it is safe to say that his actions would get a special scrutiny. Certainly I remember Pittsburghers were posting to blogs claiming Obama was going to create a secret police force and round up Republicans, and/or claiming that Obama is a socialist and/or a Muslim. Now, I still maintain my private theory that some of the actions Obama takes, he does with at least partially the intention of defying the assumptions made by those Pittsburghers and around half of the rest of the country. But while you might expect he would get praise for, say, the amount of tax cuts he put into the stimulus bill, instead that component of the stimulus is ignored by Republicans/conservatives, and Obama is blamed because the stimulus did not have that big an effect (as also predicted by liberal economists like Paul Krugman). Essentially the accommodations that Obama makes for Republicans (often before a policy is formally proposed) have been reinterpreted, with conservatives crowing that Obama is disappointing his supporters, or weak, or something.
Jack Kelly spends his whole column on that today. In doing so, he pushes some stereotypes that quite frankly I find offensive. Don't get me wrong, some of what he says about Obama I agree with, but some seems to be right out of the Palin/Tea Party playbook. His third paragraph starts with a grammatically bizarre sentence and then has a huge stereotype that is obviously false: "The desire among whites to rid themselves of racial guilt crossed party and ideological lines, but was felt most strongly by white liberals. White liberals could relate to Barack Obama because -- as a product of elite private schools and Ivy League colleges -- he was much like them." Ok, first, does no one edit Kelly's work? Is this writing something the Post Gazette would want to represent them to the country? And second, to be a white liberal, you have to be the product of an "elite" private school and an Ivy League college? Sorry, Bill Peduto, Pat Dowd, or anyone who didn't go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth or Cornell, you can't call yourself a liberal. This sort of bigotry based on education is straight out of the Tea Party's own version of a Declaration of Independence, which stated among other things, (from possibly faulty memory) that they would not be controlled by the educated elites. It reminds of nothing so much as Richard Nixon's railing against the "East Coast intellectual elite".
I won't spend much more (of your) time on this, except to note a few more whoppers. Near the end, Kelly starts to summarize Obama's misdeed, noting that he reneged on a promise to close Guantanamo (true) and on a promise not to raise taxed on the middle class (hunh?). What tax? Without listing a specific, and without noting the taxes lowered for everyone in the stimulus, this sounds like a made up attack, again straight out of the Palin/Bachman/Tea Party playbook.
Then in the next two sentences Kelly gives what is maybe the biggest whopper of them all: "He has even reneged on his implicit promise to be a racial healer. His administration has been the most racially polarizing since Woodrow Wilson's." I won't even dignify that with a comment.
Kelly finishes talking about how the media deceived us about Obama's brilliance (according to Kelly), finishing with "It's time now for them to show us the little man behind the curtain.". Totally silly, and demanding the media explain Obama to his satisfaction is just insulting to Kelly's readers.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The real agenda.
Today's Jack Kelly column is interesting. Kelly talks about how evil public sector unions are in Wisconsin, particularly taking aim at teachers (Governor Walker has largely exempted police and firefighters from making cuts in their wages or benefits, evidently because police and firefighters are more likely to give money to Republicans). Kelly cites a CPA (!) who says "If government workers were paid the same as equivalent private sector workers, no state would have a budget deficit". In point of fact, the Center for State & Local Government Excellence found in 2008 that state and local workers made around 11 percent less than comparably educated private sector workers.
In a rare display of honesty, Kelly does note that Wisconsin public employee unions have offered to meet the governor's financial demands, although Kelly fails to note the governor has simply refused to talk to them. Kelly instead rails against the evils of collective bargaining, implying the unions will simply demand more money and reversal of the concessions next year. But these same unions have had no raises in two years, and at least one year in the past accepted an unpaid furlough that amounted to a three percent pay cut. And this was with a governor who is a Democrat.
Plus, Wisconsin is not currently bankrupt. In fact, before announcing this bill, Walker pushed through tax cuts benefiting big business. Further, the pension fund that Kelly talks about in vague, general terms is in fact fully funded. As so many Democrats and labor leaders have said, this is not about the budget.
I have heard several pundits/reporters suggest the Republican motivation in this case is to bust public sector unions, with the goal of reducing union influence in general. And some of that may be true, but today on "Meet the Press" I heard that Howard Fineman has proposed a slightly more limited but focused goal. Pubic sector unions are known for giving money and labor to the Democrats. Changing public sector unions by eliminating the automatic contribution from members (and reducing the income of members) will remove public sector unions as factors in elections. This would pave the way to change the financial equation, where Republicans will be able to receive essentially unlimited amounts of money from corporations while Democrats will have many fewer and smaller sources of financing.
Meanwhile, Kelly goes on about how Milwaukee teachers are paid, on average, $100,000 for nine months work in wages and benefits. By the way, that doesn't taking home a hundred grand, it means taking home maybe sixty, seventy grand (how much does Kelly make for working one day a week?). But Kelly says, eight of the 100 worst performing schools are in Milwaukee.
My question is, by cutting teacher pay and benefits forever more, does Kelly think Wisconsin (and the rest of the country) is going to get better job applicants? That paying less will make the city's schools better?
Apparently, in their desire to gain power in local, state and the federal government, Republicans are willing to permanently damage the public school system, and much of the rest the government (I haven't even mentioned cuts to the SEC, the IRS and the EPA).
In a rare display of honesty, Kelly does note that Wisconsin public employee unions have offered to meet the governor's financial demands, although Kelly fails to note the governor has simply refused to talk to them. Kelly instead rails against the evils of collective bargaining, implying the unions will simply demand more money and reversal of the concessions next year. But these same unions have had no raises in two years, and at least one year in the past accepted an unpaid furlough that amounted to a three percent pay cut. And this was with a governor who is a Democrat.
Plus, Wisconsin is not currently bankrupt. In fact, before announcing this bill, Walker pushed through tax cuts benefiting big business. Further, the pension fund that Kelly talks about in vague, general terms is in fact fully funded. As so many Democrats and labor leaders have said, this is not about the budget.
I have heard several pundits/reporters suggest the Republican motivation in this case is to bust public sector unions, with the goal of reducing union influence in general. And some of that may be true, but today on "Meet the Press" I heard that Howard Fineman has proposed a slightly more limited but focused goal. Pubic sector unions are known for giving money and labor to the Democrats. Changing public sector unions by eliminating the automatic contribution from members (and reducing the income of members) will remove public sector unions as factors in elections. This would pave the way to change the financial equation, where Republicans will be able to receive essentially unlimited amounts of money from corporations while Democrats will have many fewer and smaller sources of financing.
Meanwhile, Kelly goes on about how Milwaukee teachers are paid, on average, $100,000 for nine months work in wages and benefits. By the way, that doesn't taking home a hundred grand, it means taking home maybe sixty, seventy grand (how much does Kelly make for working one day a week?). But Kelly says, eight of the 100 worst performing schools are in Milwaukee.
My question is, by cutting teacher pay and benefits forever more, does Kelly think Wisconsin (and the rest of the country) is going to get better job applicants? That paying less will make the city's schools better?
Apparently, in their desire to gain power in local, state and the federal government, Republicans are willing to permanently damage the public school system, and much of the rest the government (I haven't even mentioned cuts to the SEC, the IRS and the EPA).
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The little engine that couldn't ....
So today in his column, Jack Kelly essentially said that while freight trains are fine, passenger trains are pretty useless, and the government shouold not spend extra or perhaps any money on them. Before I look at the gaps in his argument, I should probably look at where I might agree with him. Kelly states that right now passenger rail accounts for a small percentage of all of travel in the US, and I have no doubt that's true. I suspect Amtrak has been given an impossible task, ordered to charge ticket prices that reflect as a large a part of costs as possible, and then given a subsidy that allows the trains to (just barely) continue running. I believe the trains between DC and New York/Boston are somewhat popular, but I would be surprised if any other routes could say even that.
So when Kelly compares passenger mile prices between driving, flying and taking the train, he is looking at just the cost of gas for driving, and the for flying the ticket price for a flying cattle car (full capacity seating) as compared to the less than full trains. Of course the driving cost ignores maintenance, insurance and other incidentals, and the cost of both driving and flying ignores their greater effects on the environment. But what really caught my eye was that Kelly ignores the fact that train ridership is higher in Europe (in absolute and percentage terms). Why would that be the case? I am not absolutely sure, but I'll bet a lot of the train tracks in Europe wee laid after world war II, and can accommodate faster trains (which they run). Oil being highly taxed there probably makes train travel more attractive pricewise, especially if the trains have more passengers, and so can better leverage the higher fuel efficiency per passenger mile of trains.
Amusingly Kelly also complains about the time it would take to go to a train station, without once mentioning the time it takes to go to airports, including larger parking lots and of course the wait at security checkpoints. But despite the fact I disagree with Kelly on theoretical grounds, I think he may have a point. Unless we throw maybe ten times what the President wants to spend, we won't be able to fund more than one or two projects, a drop in this bucket. Americans seem in love with cars (and/or SUVs and pick-ups) and flying, and even if Congress were to increase the gas tax (though I don't that coming to pass), I don't think Americans will give the cars and planes easily or soon.
Still, the ultimate point in Kelly's column, for my money, was where he said he had read somewhere that the Denver airport covers more land than would be required to build an Alaska to Miami rail line. First of all, hunh? And second, if anything, that meaningless factoid supports rail construction. But Kelly tries to present it as the opposite, as he so often does.
So when Kelly compares passenger mile prices between driving, flying and taking the train, he is looking at just the cost of gas for driving, and the for flying the ticket price for a flying cattle car (full capacity seating) as compared to the less than full trains. Of course the driving cost ignores maintenance, insurance and other incidentals, and the cost of both driving and flying ignores their greater effects on the environment. But what really caught my eye was that Kelly ignores the fact that train ridership is higher in Europe (in absolute and percentage terms). Why would that be the case? I am not absolutely sure, but I'll bet a lot of the train tracks in Europe wee laid after world war II, and can accommodate faster trains (which they run). Oil being highly taxed there probably makes train travel more attractive pricewise, especially if the trains have more passengers, and so can better leverage the higher fuel efficiency per passenger mile of trains.
Amusingly Kelly also complains about the time it would take to go to a train station, without once mentioning the time it takes to go to airports, including larger parking lots and of course the wait at security checkpoints. But despite the fact I disagree with Kelly on theoretical grounds, I think he may have a point. Unless we throw maybe ten times what the President wants to spend, we won't be able to fund more than one or two projects, a drop in this bucket. Americans seem in love with cars (and/or SUVs and pick-ups) and flying, and even if Congress were to increase the gas tax (though I don't that coming to pass), I don't think Americans will give the cars and planes easily or soon.
Still, the ultimate point in Kelly's column, for my money, was where he said he had read somewhere that the Denver airport covers more land than would be required to build an Alaska to Miami rail line. First of all, hunh? And second, if anything, that meaningless factoid supports rail construction. But Kelly tries to present it as the opposite, as he so often does.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Kelly and Islam
Jack Kelly continues his campaign of indirect attacks on the President while also implying conservatives would do a better job of running things, all vis a vis Egypt. He is snidely implying both that Obama has no influence in Egypt and that Obama is making missteps that endanger American interests and threaten to help the (according to Kelly) fundamentalist and terrorist Muslim Brotherhood take over the country. I can't help but wonder which is true.
Now, I think there is a danger the Muslim Brotherhood could wield significant or even dominant power in a future Egyptian government. I think that is the case because the Muslim Brotherhood is identified as a group that opposed Mubarak (or that Mubarak opposed, which ever). I think this is a possibility regardless of what the administration has said or will say. But Jack Kelly thinks it is important that you know to blame Obama if anything bad does happen, and to give neocons and Republicans credit if Egypt turns out OK.
Anyone who would describe Mark Steyn as a "humorist" has major issues (at least in my book).
Now, I think there is a danger the Muslim Brotherhood could wield significant or even dominant power in a future Egyptian government. I think that is the case because the Muslim Brotherhood is identified as a group that opposed Mubarak (or that Mubarak opposed, which ever). I think this is a possibility regardless of what the administration has said or will say. But Jack Kelly thinks it is important that you know to blame Obama if anything bad does happen, and to give neocons and Republicans credit if Egypt turns out OK.
Anyone who would describe Mark Steyn as a "humorist" has major issues (at least in my book).
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Addendum to Kelly on food prices
Interestingly, Paul Krugman wrote yesterday about much the same topic that Jack Kelly had on Sunday. Krugman mentioned the same basic ideas, that high food prices are putting the world's very poor at considerable risk. Krugman also mentioned, as Kelly did, that some people blame the Fed's "easy money" policy, although Krugman dismissed the notion. But Krugman also looked at a cause for the current spike in food prices that Kelly did not consider: climate change. Krugman suggested that droughts (in Russia) and floods (in Australia) are the sorts of weather we might expect to see becuase of climate change.
I notice that the PG did not reprint Krugman's column on Monday, as I believe they often, if not usually do.
Als0 in the Sunday NYTimes was a review of a book "Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth". Now, I haven't read this book, but I was struck by how (as communicated through the review) the book emphasized that we are handing off a lot of misery to our children. Our blinders (as indicated by the House of Representatives) towards climate change is increasing the depth and length of the problems that will be caused by climate change. We can't wish away the problem, neither religion or capitalism will save us. The price of oil will inevitably go up, whether we try to mange the increase or not (it is looking like we will not try).
Perhaps there is a similarity between our head in the sand behavior about climate change and the behavior of businesses in not hiring workers, in demanding to be able to avoid paying workers healthcare benefits, and in keeping executive compensation so far above average employees. There is that sense in both climate change and the business world that we have ours, and see no benefit in sharing or helping others. That worked well for the French monarchy and aristocracy in 1789.
I notice that the PG did not reprint Krugman's column on Monday, as I believe they often, if not usually do.
Als0 in the Sunday NYTimes was a review of a book "Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth". Now, I haven't read this book, but I was struck by how (as communicated through the review) the book emphasized that we are handing off a lot of misery to our children. Our blinders (as indicated by the House of Representatives) towards climate change is increasing the depth and length of the problems that will be caused by climate change. We can't wish away the problem, neither religion or capitalism will save us. The price of oil will inevitably go up, whether we try to mange the increase or not (it is looking like we will not try).
Perhaps there is a similarity between our head in the sand behavior about climate change and the behavior of businesses in not hiring workers, in demanding to be able to avoid paying workers healthcare benefits, and in keeping executive compensation so far above average employees. There is that sense in both climate change and the business world that we have ours, and see no benefit in sharing or helping others. That worked well for the French monarchy and aristocracy in 1789.
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Kelly on Egypt
In today's Jack Kelly column, Kelly engages in innuendo and implies all sorts of negative things about Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and Obama. To be fair, our experience with the Iranian revolution should let us us know that it is possible for revolutions in countries that have dictators we supported can turn out very bad for us. Kelly's various quotes indicate worst case scenarios for Egypt, and I will say that Americans should be reassured that Mohammad El-Baradei appears to be the leading figure to replace Mubarak. But Egypt will need to develop Democratic processes as rapidly as possible, or risk falling prey to another totalitarian regime.
I do want to note one paragraph in Kelly's column:
"President Barack Obama belatedly has concluded a lack of democracy is the source of instability in Egypt. The neoconservatives who were architects of President Bush's "freedom agenda" for the Middle East (which Mr. Obama sidetracked) wonder why it took him so long."
While Kelly is busy trying to pin this on Obama, let me ask, where was the neocon "freedom agenda" for Egypt during eight years of the Bush administration?
I do want to note one paragraph in Kelly's column:
"President Barack Obama belatedly has concluded a lack of democracy is the source of instability in Egypt. The neoconservatives who were architects of President Bush's "freedom agenda" for the Middle East (which Mr. Obama sidetracked) wonder why it took him so long."
While Kelly is busy trying to pin this on Obama, let me ask, where was the neocon "freedom agenda" for Egypt during eight years of the Bush administration?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Kelly doesn't really rise to the occasion
Today Kelly is somewhat complimentary to President Obama. But he also gives us numerous examples of Democrats who tried to pin Loughner to right wing lines. The funny thing, for me, is that Kelly closed with "In the debates to come, let us focus more on the policies and the facts supporting them, and indulge less in name-calling and finger-pointing.". Fair enough, except that Kelly just spent a entire column pointing fingers.
Monday, January 10, 2011
The talkfest ...
Over on Two Political Junkies Maria posted rather angrily about Gabrielle Giffords. I don't blame her, and I am not happy that conservatives and Tea Party types have spent the last 24 months making relatively frequent veiled violent threats. What I found somewhat appalling is that the first and several more comments suggested Loughner is/was connected to the left. In other words, liberal complaints about the right's violent rhetoric are totally unjustified, and the right's claims that the left is plotting the overthrow of t he government are vindicated by Loughner. It has turned into a heated comment fest, 26 at last look.
Similarly, but in a more subtle way, the New York Times columnists have joined the national debate. Paul Krugman, not surprisingly, blames the culture of anger (indistinctly) cultivated by conservatives aand Tap Party types. To his credit, he does not specifically say the shooter was a Republican or Tea Party type, somewhat less to his credit he singles out Bill O'Reilly an Glenn Beck as two of the figures responsible for the "Climate of Hate" we are experiencing. I say somewhat less because while I personally don't like either man, there is a large group on the right involved in reckless rhetoric.
By contrast, Ross Douthat concentrated on the nuttiness of the Tucson shooter. He brings up the Communist connections of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the nuttiness of other assassins. He also noes the accusations of the left (he could almost be talking about Krugman's column). While I agree thee Loughner certainly looks like a classic nut, his apparent anti-government rantings certainly seem more at home on the right. And then there is Republican opposition to gun control.
Which brings Gail Collins. who makes what I feel are the most sensible points. Collins is appalled (as am I) that Loughner could purchase a (concealable) handgun capable of firing 30 bullets without reload. Collins notes the Giffords herself is opposed to gun control, But Collins also notes that Giffords is practical Democrat who likes to find compromises that allow legislation to go forward. So maybe Giffords would have supported a limited gun control, one where maybe the next nut might only shoot six people, instead of eighteen. Which is to say that Collins tries to find solutions that might reduce the level of violence, instead of pinning or denying blame. Which no one besides myself will praise her for.
Similarly, but in a more subtle way, the New York Times columnists have joined the national debate. Paul Krugman, not surprisingly, blames the culture of anger (indistinctly) cultivated by conservatives aand Tap Party types. To his credit, he does not specifically say the shooter was a Republican or Tea Party type, somewhat less to his credit he singles out Bill O'Reilly an Glenn Beck as two of the figures responsible for the "Climate of Hate" we are experiencing. I say somewhat less because while I personally don't like either man, there is a large group on the right involved in reckless rhetoric.
By contrast, Ross Douthat concentrated on the nuttiness of the Tucson shooter. He brings up the Communist connections of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the nuttiness of other assassins. He also noes the accusations of the left (he could almost be talking about Krugman's column). While I agree thee Loughner certainly looks like a classic nut, his apparent anti-government rantings certainly seem more at home on the right. And then there is Republican opposition to gun control.
Which brings Gail Collins. who makes what I feel are the most sensible points. Collins is appalled (as am I) that Loughner could purchase a (concealable) handgun capable of firing 30 bullets without reload. Collins notes the Giffords herself is opposed to gun control, But Collins also notes that Giffords is practical Democrat who likes to find compromises that allow legislation to go forward. So maybe Giffords would have supported a limited gun control, one where maybe the next nut might only shoot six people, instead of eighteen. Which is to say that Collins tries to find solutions that might reduce the level of violence, instead of pinning or denying blame. Which no one besides myself will praise her for.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Kelly today, and other matters
Howdy all, Sorry I missed last week's Kelly. I had a bit of surgery done, and now I am home recuperating.
But I couldn't ignore Jack Kelly's column today. In fact, if it were up to me, I would not have chosen to publish that column today, in light of the events in Tucson yesterday.
I am not going to go into great detail about the column, I think the obvious is enough without detail. If Kelly was right that there are the two kinds of Muslims, wouldn't we see civil wars across the Middle East? Yes, Pakistan has something of a civil war going on, and it is caused by the Taliban moving over from Afghanistan.
There is unrest in the Middle East, caused by occupations, poverty, repressive governments, etc. There is also anger at the way the US has behaved in Muslim countries. And some of that anger has made it to the our shores. Still, let's think about this. Eric Holder says that 50 of the 125 arrested in the last two years are American citizens. That's with the current administration still using Bush era wire-tapping and surveillance techniques. Given how much damage twenty terrorists did on 9/11, 50 citizens is nothing to sneeze at. But given how hard the government is working on this, should we suspect their might be hundreds or thousands more out there? Do we want McCarthy-like witch hunts, with persecution of Muslims throughout the US?
I think the answer is obvious.
But I couldn't ignore Jack Kelly's column today. In fact, if it were up to me, I would not have chosen to publish that column today, in light of the events in Tucson yesterday.
I am not going to go into great detail about the column, I think the obvious is enough without detail. If Kelly was right that there are the two kinds of Muslims, wouldn't we see civil wars across the Middle East? Yes, Pakistan has something of a civil war going on, and it is caused by the Taliban moving over from Afghanistan.
There is unrest in the Middle East, caused by occupations, poverty, repressive governments, etc. There is also anger at the way the US has behaved in Muslim countries. And some of that anger has made it to the our shores. Still, let's think about this. Eric Holder says that 50 of the 125 arrested in the last two years are American citizens. That's with the current administration still using Bush era wire-tapping and surveillance techniques. Given how much damage twenty terrorists did on 9/11, 50 citizens is nothing to sneeze at. But given how hard the government is working on this, should we suspect their might be hundreds or thousands more out there? Do we want McCarthy-like witch hunts, with persecution of Muslims throughout the US?
I think the answer is obvious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
