I will state upfront that I have generally been uninterested in 3D movies. Used to be they were mostly schlocky horror movies that used the technology simply to scare viewers by throwing axes at the audience. That has changed. Not to say that there aren't a number of movies that still use 3D as a scare tactic, but it's found more mainstream support over the last few years. Still, I have consciously avoided the 3D versions of movies I've wanted to see.
Over the last year, it seems that every animated flick or adventure movie was released with a 3D version. It had become such a 'must have' thing that Clash of the Titans, originally shot in 2D, had 3D bolted on after the fact. According to some reviews, the result was lackluster, but then most didn't seem charitable about the movie itself either. Until this last weekend I had only seen one major motion picture in 3D and that was Ice Age 3. I only saw the 3D version of that because I was going along with others. If it had been my choice I would have seen it in 2D instead. As the number of movies released in 3D increased I did find my curiosity peaked and wondered about seeing one in 2D then again in 3D, but I never really got around to it. Partly this was not being excited enough about most of them to want to see them twice in the theater. Partly it was the roughly $3 premium the 3D versions commanded. Not a huge sum of money, but added to the regular ticket price and something from the concession stand begins pushing even a matinee towards $20.
This changed for me last weekend. I was in a blah mood and figured a movie was a good idea, so I checked the listings. While scanning the current releases I found myself drawn to the Avatar re-release that was supposed to include additional scenes. Seemed like a good choice. I'd seen it in 2D back in December, so I would have some means of comparison, and there's no doubt that it's a visually impressive movie. After a brief debate I figured 'why not?' So I ponied up over $9 for a matinee show, grabbed some snacks and my 3D specs and headed in.
For some reason I was a little surprised to see the previews in 3D, though I'm not sure why it should have been unexpected. I settled into my usual spot down front and as close to center as possible. My usual preference is to be close enough that the screen pretty much fills my vision. Feels more immersive somehow. Soon after the movie started however I realized that this wasn't ideal for 3D. Why? The glasses have pretty small lenses and I found that sitting that close meant that I was often turning my head a little to see things clearly towards the edges of the screen. I could have moved, but ultimately didn't. The place was just full enough that I wouldn't have gotten a good center seat without going to the back of the theater. After a little time I got used to it and only occasionally noticed the lens issue.
As for the overall experience, I was not overwhelmed. Certainly some scenes were more spectacular and visually stunning in 3D, but I didn't feel that it was enough to overcome the price and the requirement for bulky glasses. In fact I often felt like I was watching the movie through a tube. As long as I looked straight ahead, it was OK. But if I looked down at my drink or snack, what wasn't a fuzzy mess was partially blocked by the heavy frames of the glasses. It really yanked me out of the experience. Another issue was the feeling that the lenses were not very clean. The edges seemed fuzzy to some degree. I didn't think to look closely when I left to see if that was true or if it was just the nature of the small lenses.
In the end, I still feel little if any desire to go 3D. The bulky glasses, with such small lenses make it very easy to be distracted and taken out of the action. They often felt like a barrier, as if I was watching the movie through holes in a wall. If they were lighter and could be made with a more 'Oakley' style wrap-around design it would make a huge difference. However I suspect that one reason the lenses are as small and flat as they are is due to limitations in the current technology. As long as glasses are required it seems to me that 3D is little more than an interesting gimmick. While it can make the visuals pop at times, overall these occasions were not enough to sell me on it. I want to be able to lean back and get lost in the film, not keep shifting my sightline and wondering if the glasses are dirty or not. And it's obvious that I would have been better off farther back, despite my preference for sitting closer. In the end I felt that the limitations of 3D pulled me out of the movie far more than it immersed me in it. This isn't to say I'll never see another movie in 3D, but it's not my first choice. Once the technology finds a way to deliver 3D with no eyewear required, then it will be much more interesting to me.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
A Book Review: War
The war in Afghanistan conjures up many things for Americans. But unless we've got a loved one in harm's way or have lost someone there, we usually focus on the larger political issues. We think about the Taliban, Al-Qaida and the 'terrorist connection' or maybe about Pakistan's tepid response to extremists operating out their side of the border. What we don't think about is what it's like to be an infantryman, spending 15 months in one of the tiny outposts scattered about Afghanistan's frontiers. That's what Sabastian Junger's book 'War' is all about.
Sebastian Junger is a journalist who's written a number of books, including the book that was adapted into the movie 'The Perfect Storm'. This book was put together from five trips Junger made, often with photographer Tim Hetherington, into the Korengal Valley over the course of 2007 - 2008. He was embedded with a US Army unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, occupying several outposts in a six mile long valley that accounted for a fifth of all the fighting in Afghanistan. As he puts it in the introduction, he was "totally dependent on the military for food, security and transportation." He often went on patrols with the men and, in one instance, was nearly killed by an improvised bomb that went off under a Humvee he was traveling in.
Much of the book takes place in the area around an outpost called Restrepo, named for a medic who was killed in the valley. This book doesn't address the grand points of strategy or politics, but instead focuses on a small group of soldiers and their daily experiences of boredom, terror and exhilaration. Most of these men are in their early 20's and sent to fight on the far side of the world. Junger introduces you to many of them individually and gives a glimpse into the stresses we, here in the States, can only imagine. Making foot patrols in 100+ degree heat in full body armor and loaded down with weapons and ammunition. Hiking through terrain that is so steep and difficult in places that even hardened infantrymen are left gasping and exhausted. Sudden bursts of gunfire and the latent fear of being overrun.
The book is neither Pro nor Anti war. Its focus is so close and narrow that the causes or goals of the war at large are barely even acknowledged. It's a book about camaraderie and trust at a level that only someone who has been in combat could probably really understand. Junger shows the strange world these soldiers inhabit where the boredom can become so oppressive that some almost hoped for an attack. He also gives us a glimpse into the aftermath of spending months in this environment. In one instance Junger relates how one of the soldiers, when he returned home, instructed his mother on the only way to wake him. He told her to touch his ankle and call his last name. This was how he was always awakened for guard duty. Anything else could mean they were being overrun.
This book shows very well the hardships and the toll this sort of experience exacts on young men under fire. But more than probably anything else, we see love. The kind of love that transcends the simplistic view of whether you like or dislike the guy next to you. Either way, you know that you'll risk your life for him and he for you. It's not a matter of bravery or courage in the Hollywood sense. It's a matter of love and trust. These men are driven, not out of some desire to be heroes, but by a soul deep determination to never, ever let the others down. I think this book is a 'must read' whether you support or oppose the war in Afghanistan.
Sebastian Junger is a journalist who's written a number of books, including the book that was adapted into the movie 'The Perfect Storm'. This book was put together from five trips Junger made, often with photographer Tim Hetherington, into the Korengal Valley over the course of 2007 - 2008. He was embedded with a US Army unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, occupying several outposts in a six mile long valley that accounted for a fifth of all the fighting in Afghanistan. As he puts it in the introduction, he was "totally dependent on the military for food, security and transportation." He often went on patrols with the men and, in one instance, was nearly killed by an improvised bomb that went off under a Humvee he was traveling in.
Much of the book takes place in the area around an outpost called Restrepo, named for a medic who was killed in the valley. This book doesn't address the grand points of strategy or politics, but instead focuses on a small group of soldiers and their daily experiences of boredom, terror and exhilaration. Most of these men are in their early 20's and sent to fight on the far side of the world. Junger introduces you to many of them individually and gives a glimpse into the stresses we, here in the States, can only imagine. Making foot patrols in 100+ degree heat in full body armor and loaded down with weapons and ammunition. Hiking through terrain that is so steep and difficult in places that even hardened infantrymen are left gasping and exhausted. Sudden bursts of gunfire and the latent fear of being overrun.
The book is neither Pro nor Anti war. Its focus is so close and narrow that the causes or goals of the war at large are barely even acknowledged. It's a book about camaraderie and trust at a level that only someone who has been in combat could probably really understand. Junger shows the strange world these soldiers inhabit where the boredom can become so oppressive that some almost hoped for an attack. He also gives us a glimpse into the aftermath of spending months in this environment. In one instance Junger relates how one of the soldiers, when he returned home, instructed his mother on the only way to wake him. He told her to touch his ankle and call his last name. This was how he was always awakened for guard duty. Anything else could mean they were being overrun.
This book shows very well the hardships and the toll this sort of experience exacts on young men under fire. But more than probably anything else, we see love. The kind of love that transcends the simplistic view of whether you like or dislike the guy next to you. Either way, you know that you'll risk your life for him and he for you. It's not a matter of bravery or courage in the Hollywood sense. It's a matter of love and trust. These men are driven, not out of some desire to be heroes, but by a soul deep determination to never, ever let the others down. I think this book is a 'must read' whether you support or oppose the war in Afghanistan.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Party First
I try very hard to be open minded when listening to interviews and speeches. It doesn't mean I expect them to change my mind, but I don't want to be the type of person who ignores anything that doesn't match my preconceived ideas and occasionally I do learn something. But any respect I may have had for Conservative ideas, politicians or pundits has been stripped to the bone over the last few years. Particularly since the last Presidential election, intelligent discourse from Conservatives has gone out the window. I can't speak for their private correspondence, but in public they are all about extremism, absolutism and misinformation. Ironically, these are some of the same charges they make about their opponents. This isn't the normal political theater, this is more like political farce.
I believe it primarily emerged from pure fear. Fear that a moderate, young, articulate black man was swept into office on a wave of popular support. To Conservatives, with the loss of control in both House and Senate, this must have looked like the apocalypse. It was complicated further when this new President actually was willing to incorporate old Republican ideas for health reform and other pressing issues. While this would mean that Conservatives could actually expect to be able to get some of their policies incorporated in Administration legislation it also meant that they would get little to no credit from the passage of these compromise bills. And that would put them in a lousy position going into the next election cycle. They needed to stand out from the Democrats, not be in a coalition with them. So they fell back on the only weapons they had left: obstructionism, fear and misinformation. They immediately dug in their heels, circled the wagons and stood in absolute opposition to absolutely everything.
Some will take exception to my characterization of the President as a 'Moderate', but that's merely a result of 18 months of ludicrous hyperbole spewed by Conservatives into any microphone they could find. Over and over the President has incorporated ideas formerly championed by Republicans in years past. In fact one of the most controversial provisions in the Health Reform bill, the Individual Mandate, was an idea originally proposed by Republicans during the Clinton era health reform fight. And that was not the only one. The President and Democrats in Congress also compromised over and over with their Republican colleagues on virtually every piece of legislation in the vain hope that they could get even token support for their proposals. The result? Republicans began fighting against their own ideas and calling them radical and extremist! I've seen parades of split screen speeches where prominent Republicans made diametrically opposed arguments separated by, in some cases, less than a year! On one side is Republican X calling for adoption of this great idea and on the other the same person calling the very same idea Socialist, extremist and the end of civilization as we know it. The only thing that surprised me more than watching such outrageous displays of hypocrisy was seeing crowds of protesters who actually took these idiots seriously. These people either didn't realize how false the speakers were being or didn't care as long as it fell into their preconceived narrative. Final proof of the absurdity of Conservative's charges of extremism is the fact that every one of these supposed 'Left wing extremist' bills was met with frustration and disappointment from Liberals who watched compromise after compromise gut the ideas they most cared about, such as the 'Public Option/Single Payer' plan. So if the President and Democrats are so extreme in their policies, then please explain to me why middle of the road Liberals were so underwhelmed with the results? Calling these policies 'extremist' makes for catchy sound bites, but bears little resemblance to reality.
For over a year and a half Conservatives have used every trick in the rule book to block not just final votes on legislation but even motions to bring bills to the floor for discussion. I can't see how their actions could be judged as anything but pure obstructionism for its own sake. This session of Congress has seen the Senate Filibuster, whereby the minority party can block majority action if they can control a mere 41% of the voting members, invoked more than twice as often as any other year in US history. Republicans in the Senate have blocked or attempted to block almost every piece of legislation proposed by the Democrats. And in many of the other cases they still threatened to Filibuster. Senate Democrats have reached the point of just assuming that ANY legislation will require 60 votes to pass. These Filibusters had little to do with policy disagreements and were all about doing everything possible to stop a popular President from accomplishing anything. Even at the expense of the nation they are supposed to be serving. How do I know this? Because of the unprecedented frequency that Filibusters have been used and the vanishingly rare occurrences of Republicans breaking ranks to vote 'Yes'. In a normal Congressional session it is commonplace for individual Senators and small blocks to vote contrary to the bulk of the Republican or Democratic party. It's normal for moderate Conservatives to occasionally agree with moderate Liberals. But since the inauguration the Republicans have somehow managed to vote 'no' as an unbroken block on the vast majority of issues. A few might talk of considering a vote in favor, but when it came down to it they almost always voted 'no'. So either every single piece of legislation proposed by Obama or Congressional Democrats was unconscionable or Republicans were following a well crafted and rehearsed plan. There is no other explanation.
The other indicator of how moderate the current Administration is overall comes from how far and fast Conservatives have bolted farther to the Right in an effort to differentiate themselves from the Administration. This has been turbo charged by the rise of the 'Tea Party' candidates who accuse the current majority of being synonymous with Hitler, Stalin, Marx and any other historically 'evil' person they can remember from High School civics class. They speak as if there is some form of tyranny being practiced, completely forgetting that the majority party was VOTED into office! They speak in reverent tones of the Constitution, yet conveniently ignore sections they don't like whenever it suits them. They ignore the annoying fact that these individuals were all elected and instead mutter about "second amendment remedies" if they don't get what they want. There has been no tyranny unless it's the tyranny of Democracy.
That's the bottom line for me. I see Conservatives, particularly as the mid-term elections approach, give every sign of actually hoping the economy remains stagnant and jobs non-existent. The worse the economy, the more they can frame it as the fault of the majority party. Never mind that Conservatives have proposed almost nothing of substance themselves. Despite the fact that they have done everything they could to prevent any significant legislation from being passed. Despite gutting every attempt at stimulating the economy to the point of even voting against tax breaks. Keeping in mind that for Conservatives, tax cuts are the holy grail of economic policy. According to them cutting taxes, which they don't mention will increase the deficit, will jump start the economy, magically create millions of jobs, protect us from terrorists and cure most forms of cancer. Despite the fact that there is little data to suggest that tax cuts are particularly effective as stimulus. And despite the fact that George W. Bush's two rounds of tax cuts added well over a Trillion dollars to the national debt. Facts are such annoying things, aren't they?
Do I think Democrats are our saviors? No, of course not. I don't necessarily agree with everything that they have proposed or passed and there are many things I wish they had taken action on that they have not. But I'll tell you one thing, at least they are trying to do something. They are still trying to act as a functioning government. Are they pure and righteous? No, but they haven't looked out on the sea of citizens laid off and unemployed through no fault of their own and accused them of sloth and drug abuse as a number of prominent Republicans have done. Democrats have tried to implement plans to stimulate the economy using all sorts of ideas including tax cuts for small business only to watch them delayed and picked apart by the opposition. I will vote Democrat because at least they are making some attempt at doing the job they were elected to do. They aren't saints and I have no illusions about their own self interest, but at least they are on the job. They are making an effort to put out the fires rather than using them to light torches.
I believe it primarily emerged from pure fear. Fear that a moderate, young, articulate black man was swept into office on a wave of popular support. To Conservatives, with the loss of control in both House and Senate, this must have looked like the apocalypse. It was complicated further when this new President actually was willing to incorporate old Republican ideas for health reform and other pressing issues. While this would mean that Conservatives could actually expect to be able to get some of their policies incorporated in Administration legislation it also meant that they would get little to no credit from the passage of these compromise bills. And that would put them in a lousy position going into the next election cycle. They needed to stand out from the Democrats, not be in a coalition with them. So they fell back on the only weapons they had left: obstructionism, fear and misinformation. They immediately dug in their heels, circled the wagons and stood in absolute opposition to absolutely everything.
Some will take exception to my characterization of the President as a 'Moderate', but that's merely a result of 18 months of ludicrous hyperbole spewed by Conservatives into any microphone they could find. Over and over the President has incorporated ideas formerly championed by Republicans in years past. In fact one of the most controversial provisions in the Health Reform bill, the Individual Mandate, was an idea originally proposed by Republicans during the Clinton era health reform fight. And that was not the only one. The President and Democrats in Congress also compromised over and over with their Republican colleagues on virtually every piece of legislation in the vain hope that they could get even token support for their proposals. The result? Republicans began fighting against their own ideas and calling them radical and extremist! I've seen parades of split screen speeches where prominent Republicans made diametrically opposed arguments separated by, in some cases, less than a year! On one side is Republican X calling for adoption of this great idea and on the other the same person calling the very same idea Socialist, extremist and the end of civilization as we know it. The only thing that surprised me more than watching such outrageous displays of hypocrisy was seeing crowds of protesters who actually took these idiots seriously. These people either didn't realize how false the speakers were being or didn't care as long as it fell into their preconceived narrative. Final proof of the absurdity of Conservative's charges of extremism is the fact that every one of these supposed 'Left wing extremist' bills was met with frustration and disappointment from Liberals who watched compromise after compromise gut the ideas they most cared about, such as the 'Public Option/Single Payer' plan. So if the President and Democrats are so extreme in their policies, then please explain to me why middle of the road Liberals were so underwhelmed with the results? Calling these policies 'extremist' makes for catchy sound bites, but bears little resemblance to reality.
For over a year and a half Conservatives have used every trick in the rule book to block not just final votes on legislation but even motions to bring bills to the floor for discussion. I can't see how their actions could be judged as anything but pure obstructionism for its own sake. This session of Congress has seen the Senate Filibuster, whereby the minority party can block majority action if they can control a mere 41% of the voting members, invoked more than twice as often as any other year in US history. Republicans in the Senate have blocked or attempted to block almost every piece of legislation proposed by the Democrats. And in many of the other cases they still threatened to Filibuster. Senate Democrats have reached the point of just assuming that ANY legislation will require 60 votes to pass. These Filibusters had little to do with policy disagreements and were all about doing everything possible to stop a popular President from accomplishing anything. Even at the expense of the nation they are supposed to be serving. How do I know this? Because of the unprecedented frequency that Filibusters have been used and the vanishingly rare occurrences of Republicans breaking ranks to vote 'Yes'. In a normal Congressional session it is commonplace for individual Senators and small blocks to vote contrary to the bulk of the Republican or Democratic party. It's normal for moderate Conservatives to occasionally agree with moderate Liberals. But since the inauguration the Republicans have somehow managed to vote 'no' as an unbroken block on the vast majority of issues. A few might talk of considering a vote in favor, but when it came down to it they almost always voted 'no'. So either every single piece of legislation proposed by Obama or Congressional Democrats was unconscionable or Republicans were following a well crafted and rehearsed plan. There is no other explanation.
The other indicator of how moderate the current Administration is overall comes from how far and fast Conservatives have bolted farther to the Right in an effort to differentiate themselves from the Administration. This has been turbo charged by the rise of the 'Tea Party' candidates who accuse the current majority of being synonymous with Hitler, Stalin, Marx and any other historically 'evil' person they can remember from High School civics class. They speak as if there is some form of tyranny being practiced, completely forgetting that the majority party was VOTED into office! They speak in reverent tones of the Constitution, yet conveniently ignore sections they don't like whenever it suits them. They ignore the annoying fact that these individuals were all elected and instead mutter about "second amendment remedies" if they don't get what they want. There has been no tyranny unless it's the tyranny of Democracy.
That's the bottom line for me. I see Conservatives, particularly as the mid-term elections approach, give every sign of actually hoping the economy remains stagnant and jobs non-existent. The worse the economy, the more they can frame it as the fault of the majority party. Never mind that Conservatives have proposed almost nothing of substance themselves. Despite the fact that they have done everything they could to prevent any significant legislation from being passed. Despite gutting every attempt at stimulating the economy to the point of even voting against tax breaks. Keeping in mind that for Conservatives, tax cuts are the holy grail of economic policy. According to them cutting taxes, which they don't mention will increase the deficit, will jump start the economy, magically create millions of jobs, protect us from terrorists and cure most forms of cancer. Despite the fact that there is little data to suggest that tax cuts are particularly effective as stimulus. And despite the fact that George W. Bush's two rounds of tax cuts added well over a Trillion dollars to the national debt. Facts are such annoying things, aren't they?
Do I think Democrats are our saviors? No, of course not. I don't necessarily agree with everything that they have proposed or passed and there are many things I wish they had taken action on that they have not. But I'll tell you one thing, at least they are trying to do something. They are still trying to act as a functioning government. Are they pure and righteous? No, but they haven't looked out on the sea of citizens laid off and unemployed through no fault of their own and accused them of sloth and drug abuse as a number of prominent Republicans have done. Democrats have tried to implement plans to stimulate the economy using all sorts of ideas including tax cuts for small business only to watch them delayed and picked apart by the opposition. I will vote Democrat because at least they are making some attempt at doing the job they were elected to do. They aren't saints and I have no illusions about their own self interest, but at least they are on the job. They are making an effort to put out the fires rather than using them to light torches.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Real Inconvenient Truth
I'm sure a lot of people have heard of Nissan's new electric car called the Leaf. It's nice to see electric vehicles being actively developed after all these years of tinkering. With an electric range of around 40 miles and the inclusion of a gasoline generator to provide electric power if you stretch your travels beyond that initial range, it seems like an excellent compromise. An electric car emits no carbon monoxide or other pollutants into the atmosphere and can be charged overnight during non-peak power usage. Of course there is a problem. Seems there always is, but that just reminds us that there are no perfect solutions. The sticking point is the power itself. The Leaf is a great step towards reducing pollution, but it's only a step. Focusing on the end product, electric cars, blinds us to the root issue of where the electricity comes from. Technically the Leaf is a "zero emission" vehicle. But only if you ignore the emissions of the power plants that produced the electricity itself.
So now we face the crux of the issue. Yes we can dust off the old idea of an electric vehicle, but we're left with . . . well, an ELECTRIC vehicle. Electricity is not a magic substance distilled from dreams, it's a limited commodity. We don't have it anywhere near as bad as some of the less industrialized nations who have to live with regular daily periods without power or unexpected brownouts. However even in the US, stretches of very hot weather in urban centers can still cause brownouts and public calls for limiting use during peak times. Now a small number of electric cars, charging overnight may not be a significant issue but assuming, not unreasonably, that the technology becomes cheaper and more prevalent we are going to see demand for electricity rise even as the demand for gas begins to fall. Remember, there are no free rides when it comes to powering our civilization and all that additional electrical demand has to come from somewhere. I would suggest that it might be wise to work on the supply problem before we dive too deeply into creating additional demand.
So that brings us to how we generate the power we have now. Since we've yet to discover any of the near mythic power technologies such as cold fusion, we are left with our current, no pun intended, power generation technology. That situation is not pretty and certainly not clean. Our electricity comes from power plants and the majority of those generate power by burning coal. Coal, of course, is the worst type of fuel for pollution. But there are the new 'clean coal' plants, right? Sure it's clean, as long as you compare it to other coal plants. Compared to anything else they're still horrible. So while I'm all for electric vehicles, at some point we're going to have to address the actual problem...the fact that most of our energy is still based on ancient technology. Coal, natural gas and oil are, at their most basic, little removed from the idea of burning logs to heat the cave. All we've done since is to refine the process over the centuries. We continue to be shackled to finite, dirty and dangerous sources of power and creating an electric car only pushes the pollution off to another location. It doesn't actually reduce it.
This brings us to pollution that is caused almost exclusively by burning fossil fuels. Now I don't know if it causes Global Warming, and to be honest I don't really care. What I do care about is stopping the pollution! We are way too worked up about this debate on 'Climate Change' and its cause. Seems that most scientists agree that there has been a warming trend in the Earth's climate with correspondingly more extreme weather. Where the fist fights erupt is over the, in my opinion meaningless, assignation of blame for it. Is it a natural cycle or is it human induced or at least human enhanced? I tell you, it does not matter! This is a pointless argument. Why? Because there is no doubt whatsoever that we are polluting the planet. We dump things into our waterways, oceans and the air that we would never touch, drink or breath because it would kill us. Nobody with a functioning brain can possibly think this stuff is doing anything good for the environment or our collective health. The 'environment' isn't just a whimsical term used by GreenPeace. The Environment is what we breathe, what we drink and what we eat. Every belch of soot from a coal plant ends up in someone's lungs. Every bucket of fertilizer ends up somewhere in the marine food chain and eventually some trace will find its way into that tasty plate of Fish and Chips you picked up at Applebees. Every misguided attempt to coax out another wisp of natural gas from the bedrock leaches a little bit of chemical residue into the water supply. Every year, just south of the mouth of the Mississippi river, a huge 'dead zone' appears in the Gulf of Mexico. It's an area of very low oxygen where little if any marine animals can live. This isn't a natural thing. It's there because of heavy fertilizer runoff from the midwest farm belt. Color me reactionary, but this is a problem!
I know it sounds all touchy-feely, but Earth's ecosystem is one huge terrarium. What happens in one corner WILL affect everything else. Ocean currents circle the globe just as the jet stream rushes like a river at 30,000 feet across the continents. Oil spills and chemical releases don't respect national borders and are immune to military force and border fencing. We see this every time a volcano erupts and ash is tracked thousands and thousands of miles around the globe. But we pretend that it's just an inconvenient freak of nature rather than a real world example of how our planet works. Why? Because it's easier to just ignore it since it doesn't have a visible impact on our daily lives. Because it's fiscally and therefore politically convenient to do so. Am I the only one who wonders how many health issues, from cancer to autism may be linked to the toxins we breathe, eat and drink every day? Disagree? Then I invite you to take a nice deep drink of Mississippi river water. Go camp out for a week next to your nearest coal plant, and don't forget to take the kids! Emphysema is best when shared.
Look, the baseline issue here is our energy policy. Or more specifically our intense fear of actually coming up with one. The reason is because we are so heavily invested, financial and otherwise, in fossil fuels and the logistics of collecting and transporting them that any threat to move away from the tried and true sends up screams of outrage. Screams from those who benefit most from the status quo. Let me repeat that, those most opposed to moving away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy are those companies who profit from the status quo. You won't find any coal barons or oil moguls pushing for clean, renewable energy and you never will. Unless, of course, they figure out how to make lots of money from it. That's an important point to keep in mind. It's in the best interests of oil, gas and coal companies to discourage anything that threatens their monopoly on energy production. Or anything that threatens to increase their costs and subsequently lowers their profits. Energy companies are already the wealthiest in the history of humanity, but greed is insatiable. These same companies are so deeply embedded in State and Federal Government that it's painfully difficult to get any motion on moving our energy supply out of the 19th century. But we need to make the change and soon. Every day we add more pollution to the air and water. Every day the global reserves of fossil fuels are further depleted. So as we slowly poison ourselves we are also ignoring the absolute fact that these fuel sources WILL run out. Why was the Deepwater Horizon rig drilling in over 5,000 feet of water? It sure wasn't because of convenience or cost. It's because we are running out of oil reserves in more accessible locations! Just like we are having to mine deeper and deeper for significant reserves of coal. And why we are dropping natural gas wells in people's back yards and contaminating their drinking water. No, the world won't be running out of any of these fuels tomorrow, but it's coming. Just think about the term 'fossil' fuels. This stuff was laid down and cooked underground for millions of years to become the energy sources of today. When it's gone, it's gone forever, at least in a time period that has any meaning to humans. Politicians of all stripes drone on and on about the need to obtain energy independence yet nobody has the guts to actually do anything. Humans are apparently too stupid and short sighted to prepare for even obvious disasters lurking in the future because it will inconvenience us today. We'd rather react once the bottom falls out rather than prepare ahead of time. That's the real Inconvenient Truth.
So now we face the crux of the issue. Yes we can dust off the old idea of an electric vehicle, but we're left with . . . well, an ELECTRIC vehicle. Electricity is not a magic substance distilled from dreams, it's a limited commodity. We don't have it anywhere near as bad as some of the less industrialized nations who have to live with regular daily periods without power or unexpected brownouts. However even in the US, stretches of very hot weather in urban centers can still cause brownouts and public calls for limiting use during peak times. Now a small number of electric cars, charging overnight may not be a significant issue but assuming, not unreasonably, that the technology becomes cheaper and more prevalent we are going to see demand for electricity rise even as the demand for gas begins to fall. Remember, there are no free rides when it comes to powering our civilization and all that additional electrical demand has to come from somewhere. I would suggest that it might be wise to work on the supply problem before we dive too deeply into creating additional demand.
So that brings us to how we generate the power we have now. Since we've yet to discover any of the near mythic power technologies such as cold fusion, we are left with our current, no pun intended, power generation technology. That situation is not pretty and certainly not clean. Our electricity comes from power plants and the majority of those generate power by burning coal. Coal, of course, is the worst type of fuel for pollution. But there are the new 'clean coal' plants, right? Sure it's clean, as long as you compare it to other coal plants. Compared to anything else they're still horrible. So while I'm all for electric vehicles, at some point we're going to have to address the actual problem...the fact that most of our energy is still based on ancient technology. Coal, natural gas and oil are, at their most basic, little removed from the idea of burning logs to heat the cave. All we've done since is to refine the process over the centuries. We continue to be shackled to finite, dirty and dangerous sources of power and creating an electric car only pushes the pollution off to another location. It doesn't actually reduce it.
This brings us to pollution that is caused almost exclusively by burning fossil fuels. Now I don't know if it causes Global Warming, and to be honest I don't really care. What I do care about is stopping the pollution! We are way too worked up about this debate on 'Climate Change' and its cause. Seems that most scientists agree that there has been a warming trend in the Earth's climate with correspondingly more extreme weather. Where the fist fights erupt is over the, in my opinion meaningless, assignation of blame for it. Is it a natural cycle or is it human induced or at least human enhanced? I tell you, it does not matter! This is a pointless argument. Why? Because there is no doubt whatsoever that we are polluting the planet. We dump things into our waterways, oceans and the air that we would never touch, drink or breath because it would kill us. Nobody with a functioning brain can possibly think this stuff is doing anything good for the environment or our collective health. The 'environment' isn't just a whimsical term used by GreenPeace. The Environment is what we breathe, what we drink and what we eat. Every belch of soot from a coal plant ends up in someone's lungs. Every bucket of fertilizer ends up somewhere in the marine food chain and eventually some trace will find its way into that tasty plate of Fish and Chips you picked up at Applebees. Every misguided attempt to coax out another wisp of natural gas from the bedrock leaches a little bit of chemical residue into the water supply. Every year, just south of the mouth of the Mississippi river, a huge 'dead zone' appears in the Gulf of Mexico. It's an area of very low oxygen where little if any marine animals can live. This isn't a natural thing. It's there because of heavy fertilizer runoff from the midwest farm belt. Color me reactionary, but this is a problem!
I know it sounds all touchy-feely, but Earth's ecosystem is one huge terrarium. What happens in one corner WILL affect everything else. Ocean currents circle the globe just as the jet stream rushes like a river at 30,000 feet across the continents. Oil spills and chemical releases don't respect national borders and are immune to military force and border fencing. We see this every time a volcano erupts and ash is tracked thousands and thousands of miles around the globe. But we pretend that it's just an inconvenient freak of nature rather than a real world example of how our planet works. Why? Because it's easier to just ignore it since it doesn't have a visible impact on our daily lives. Because it's fiscally and therefore politically convenient to do so. Am I the only one who wonders how many health issues, from cancer to autism may be linked to the toxins we breathe, eat and drink every day? Disagree? Then I invite you to take a nice deep drink of Mississippi river water. Go camp out for a week next to your nearest coal plant, and don't forget to take the kids! Emphysema is best when shared.
Look, the baseline issue here is our energy policy. Or more specifically our intense fear of actually coming up with one. The reason is because we are so heavily invested, financial and otherwise, in fossil fuels and the logistics of collecting and transporting them that any threat to move away from the tried and true sends up screams of outrage. Screams from those who benefit most from the status quo. Let me repeat that, those most opposed to moving away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy are those companies who profit from the status quo. You won't find any coal barons or oil moguls pushing for clean, renewable energy and you never will. Unless, of course, they figure out how to make lots of money from it. That's an important point to keep in mind. It's in the best interests of oil, gas and coal companies to discourage anything that threatens their monopoly on energy production. Or anything that threatens to increase their costs and subsequently lowers their profits. Energy companies are already the wealthiest in the history of humanity, but greed is insatiable. These same companies are so deeply embedded in State and Federal Government that it's painfully difficult to get any motion on moving our energy supply out of the 19th century. But we need to make the change and soon. Every day we add more pollution to the air and water. Every day the global reserves of fossil fuels are further depleted. So as we slowly poison ourselves we are also ignoring the absolute fact that these fuel sources WILL run out. Why was the Deepwater Horizon rig drilling in over 5,000 feet of water? It sure wasn't because of convenience or cost. It's because we are running out of oil reserves in more accessible locations! Just like we are having to mine deeper and deeper for significant reserves of coal. And why we are dropping natural gas wells in people's back yards and contaminating their drinking water. No, the world won't be running out of any of these fuels tomorrow, but it's coming. Just think about the term 'fossil' fuels. This stuff was laid down and cooked underground for millions of years to become the energy sources of today. When it's gone, it's gone forever, at least in a time period that has any meaning to humans. Politicians of all stripes drone on and on about the need to obtain energy independence yet nobody has the guts to actually do anything. Humans are apparently too stupid and short sighted to prepare for even obvious disasters lurking in the future because it will inconvenience us today. We'd rather react once the bottom falls out rather than prepare ahead of time. That's the real Inconvenient Truth.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Fiscal Reality
The conventional wisdom is that one of the most important planks in the Republican platform is 'Fiscal Conservatism'. In other words, the idea is keeping the government's purse strings pulled tight whenever possible and limit spending for non essential items. Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? I would have to say that I like the sentiment. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with everyone else on what's essential, but that's its own issue. The point is that Republicans and Conservatives in general are always harping on about fiscal restraint. Conversely, we are also told that Democrats like to spend and spend freely. Ask just about anyone and they'll tell you that Democrats are the spenders and Republicans are the party of fiscal restraint. What makes it so inconvenient is that it's not true.
First let's look at history. The previous five Presidential Administrations all increased the national debt, which probably surprises no one. But you might be surprised by how much each Administration contributed to our current debt. The Republicans' mythological hero, Ronald Reagan ballooned the national debt by 189% in his eight years in office, making him by far the biggest spender. Next on the list is another Republican, George W. Bush who increased the debt by 89% in his eight years. You're probably thinking that Clinton must be next, as the only other eight year Administration, right? Well, as a matter of fact, you would be wrong. George H. W. Bush takes the number three spot with a 55% increase in his four years in the White House. Number four is Jimmy Carter having added 42% in four years. That's right, William Jefferson Clinton, after eight years only added 36% to the national debt. He even managed to run a budget surplus towards the end of his second term. So here we have five Presidential Administrations and all three Republicans outspent the two Democratic Administrations. On top of that, the Clinton White House presided over the most fiscally responsible spending despite being reviled by Republicans. I realize that this simplifies the financial details of these administrations, yet it's hard not to see a fundamental hypocrisy from the 'Fiscal Conservatives' on the right.
Today the deficit is a major issue to the country, but has become the very raison d'être for the Conservative movement. In fact, since March of this year it has been a grueling fight to get unemployment extensions passed in the Senate as Republicans thump their chests and demand that they be paid for in the budget before they can be passed. On the surface this sounds somewhat reasonable. But as far as I can tell, emergency measures like these have historically never been paid for up front. That's probably because they are needed due to an . . . emergency. Another thing to realize, despite several prominent Republicans' moralistic babbling, is that unemployment benefits in a deep recession like we have now are just about the most direct form of economic stimulus possible. You are putting desperately needed money into the hands of people who will spend just about all of it back into the economy immediately. This prevents even more foreclosures, car repossessions and loan defaults by people on the edge. You keep people in their apartments rather than pushing them onto the streets to become an even bigger issue for the nation. But the steady thrum of Republicans chanting 'deficit, deficit, deficit' drowns out these obvious facts. What is really infuriating is that during lulls in the unemployment extension arguments, the same Conservatives who decried unpaid for benefits are calling for extending Bush era tax cuts for those who are least affected by the recession. Incidentally, both rounds of tax cuts pushed through by the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress were, wait for it . . . UN-paid for. I wish I was surprised by the hypocrisy but for good or ill I'm getting a little numb to it after the last decade. The logic, if you'll allow me to demean the term for a moment, given is that tax cuts will pay for themselves. I'm serious, that's the idea. Worse yet, some people with functioning brains actually believe it. Oh, I'm not saying that in the long term the cuts may not have some positive effects that could make back a percentage of the original cuts. But tax cuts that pay for themselves are about as viable as the mythic perpetual motion machine. It might make sense four hours into a Friday night bar crawl, but in the sober light of day it's complete drivel.
The reality is that, based on past performance, Republicans seem incapable of walking the walk once they get power. They will talk up fiscal responsibility all day long and deep into the night, but their actions continually underscore a complete lack of interest in the subject. It's a hollow, empty charade for most of them. They are on full volume now because the debt is an issue after the 8 years of wars and tax cuts under Bush and the necessity of heavy spending to try and stabilize the economy immediately after Obama took office. I won't deny that the debt is a major issue. In fact I posted a piece about the need to deal with the national debt back around the end of Bush's first term. The complicating factor is that now, in the midst of a dodgy recovery from the biggest financial disaster in 80 years, is not the time to start slashing and cutting spending. Why? Because the economy is teetering on the edge and right now the Federal government is the only entity ready and willing to pump money into the economy. The banks have somewhat recovered but are sitting tight on their cash until the economy revives. Kind of a Catch-22 for them. Banks won't lend until the economy stabilizes but the economy is having trouble stabilizing due to a lack of credit available. You see if we cut now then the States, who are already struggling to find money just to pay school teachers, will be thrown to the sharks, not to mention most any cuts of significance would result in adding more names to the already endless seeming unemployment lists. Here's where a healthy sense of irony comes in. The best time to make strides on the national debt is when the economy is doing well. That's when States are making ends meet and have some leeway in how they manage their budgets. That's when tax revenues are high because individuals and companies are buying and spending freely. That's when foreclosure and bankruptcy rates are low. That's when the banking system is flush with cash and eager to lend. That's also when politicians are least likely to cut programs and trim fiscal fat. It's when the American public is blissfully unconcerned about the debt because everything is going so darn well.
I have never claimed, and never will, that I'm a financial expert. But the most important item on the nation's agenda at this moment is stimulating the economy to spur new job creation. That's job numero uno. And that's not going to be accomplished by renewing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or by the Republicans' myopic plan of 'tax cuts fix everything'. No single thing is going to magically resurrect the economy. It will take targeted tax incentives, aggressive, focused spending, loosened credit markets and consumer confidence to get the nation back on its feet. This includes extended unemployment, in the short term, to provide some minimal support for those who are the most obvious victims of the collapse. Let me remind you that to be eligible for unemployment benefits a person had to have lost their job through no fault of their own. These people are not dead-beats as some pathetic politicians and pundits like to portray them. They were laid off because the economy tanked and business dried up, not because they quit or were fired. We can't ignore the ballooning debt, but we can't let it paralyze us from doing what's needed to restart the economy either. Unfortunately no single thing will get the national debt under control. Dealing with debt is like losing weight. It can't be done overnight and it's going to require long term changes and willpower. Where it gets tough is when the recovery is complete, the storm clouds part and the sun returns. That's when we need that fervor to attack the problem because it's always more difficult to focus on cuts and and spending reductions when the cash is flowing. America must be ready and willing to demand action on the debt when we have the resources to do so and not fall back into spending it as fast as we get it. As a nation we are so fond of declaring wars on things, so why not a War on Debt? Not only would that be a winnable war, but one with concrete benefits for Americas future. When we've climbed out of this recession, let's focus on reducing government spending through cuts and changing the way we do things. For one thing, let's reduce our military commitments overseas. I'm not just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, though to be sure both of these wars are costing us dearly. We don't need 50,000 troops in Germany anymore. We don't need tens of thousands in Japan or most of the other countries where we continue to maintain huge active duty forces. Most of these Cold War era military commitments are no longer needed. I'm not saying we should pull out everyone from everywhere, but there is no reason for the manpower commitments we currently maintain. America is capable of dealing with the financial crisis and then paying down the debt. What we have, up to this moment, been sorely lacking is the will to do so.
First let's look at history. The previous five Presidential Administrations all increased the national debt, which probably surprises no one. But you might be surprised by how much each Administration contributed to our current debt. The Republicans' mythological hero, Ronald Reagan ballooned the national debt by 189% in his eight years in office, making him by far the biggest spender. Next on the list is another Republican, George W. Bush who increased the debt by 89% in his eight years. You're probably thinking that Clinton must be next, as the only other eight year Administration, right? Well, as a matter of fact, you would be wrong. George H. W. Bush takes the number three spot with a 55% increase in his four years in the White House. Number four is Jimmy Carter having added 42% in four years. That's right, William Jefferson Clinton, after eight years only added 36% to the national debt. He even managed to run a budget surplus towards the end of his second term. So here we have five Presidential Administrations and all three Republicans outspent the two Democratic Administrations. On top of that, the Clinton White House presided over the most fiscally responsible spending despite being reviled by Republicans. I realize that this simplifies the financial details of these administrations, yet it's hard not to see a fundamental hypocrisy from the 'Fiscal Conservatives' on the right.
Today the deficit is a major issue to the country, but has become the very raison d'être for the Conservative movement. In fact, since March of this year it has been a grueling fight to get unemployment extensions passed in the Senate as Republicans thump their chests and demand that they be paid for in the budget before they can be passed. On the surface this sounds somewhat reasonable. But as far as I can tell, emergency measures like these have historically never been paid for up front. That's probably because they are needed due to an . . . emergency. Another thing to realize, despite several prominent Republicans' moralistic babbling, is that unemployment benefits in a deep recession like we have now are just about the most direct form of economic stimulus possible. You are putting desperately needed money into the hands of people who will spend just about all of it back into the economy immediately. This prevents even more foreclosures, car repossessions and loan defaults by people on the edge. You keep people in their apartments rather than pushing them onto the streets to become an even bigger issue for the nation. But the steady thrum of Republicans chanting 'deficit, deficit, deficit' drowns out these obvious facts. What is really infuriating is that during lulls in the unemployment extension arguments, the same Conservatives who decried unpaid for benefits are calling for extending Bush era tax cuts for those who are least affected by the recession. Incidentally, both rounds of tax cuts pushed through by the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress were, wait for it . . . UN-paid for. I wish I was surprised by the hypocrisy but for good or ill I'm getting a little numb to it after the last decade. The logic, if you'll allow me to demean the term for a moment, given is that tax cuts will pay for themselves. I'm serious, that's the idea. Worse yet, some people with functioning brains actually believe it. Oh, I'm not saying that in the long term the cuts may not have some positive effects that could make back a percentage of the original cuts. But tax cuts that pay for themselves are about as viable as the mythic perpetual motion machine. It might make sense four hours into a Friday night bar crawl, but in the sober light of day it's complete drivel.
The reality is that, based on past performance, Republicans seem incapable of walking the walk once they get power. They will talk up fiscal responsibility all day long and deep into the night, but their actions continually underscore a complete lack of interest in the subject. It's a hollow, empty charade for most of them. They are on full volume now because the debt is an issue after the 8 years of wars and tax cuts under Bush and the necessity of heavy spending to try and stabilize the economy immediately after Obama took office. I won't deny that the debt is a major issue. In fact I posted a piece about the need to deal with the national debt back around the end of Bush's first term. The complicating factor is that now, in the midst of a dodgy recovery from the biggest financial disaster in 80 years, is not the time to start slashing and cutting spending. Why? Because the economy is teetering on the edge and right now the Federal government is the only entity ready and willing to pump money into the economy. The banks have somewhat recovered but are sitting tight on their cash until the economy revives. Kind of a Catch-22 for them. Banks won't lend until the economy stabilizes but the economy is having trouble stabilizing due to a lack of credit available. You see if we cut now then the States, who are already struggling to find money just to pay school teachers, will be thrown to the sharks, not to mention most any cuts of significance would result in adding more names to the already endless seeming unemployment lists. Here's where a healthy sense of irony comes in. The best time to make strides on the national debt is when the economy is doing well. That's when States are making ends meet and have some leeway in how they manage their budgets. That's when tax revenues are high because individuals and companies are buying and spending freely. That's when foreclosure and bankruptcy rates are low. That's when the banking system is flush with cash and eager to lend. That's also when politicians are least likely to cut programs and trim fiscal fat. It's when the American public is blissfully unconcerned about the debt because everything is going so darn well.
I have never claimed, and never will, that I'm a financial expert. But the most important item on the nation's agenda at this moment is stimulating the economy to spur new job creation. That's job numero uno. And that's not going to be accomplished by renewing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or by the Republicans' myopic plan of 'tax cuts fix everything'. No single thing is going to magically resurrect the economy. It will take targeted tax incentives, aggressive, focused spending, loosened credit markets and consumer confidence to get the nation back on its feet. This includes extended unemployment, in the short term, to provide some minimal support for those who are the most obvious victims of the collapse. Let me remind you that to be eligible for unemployment benefits a person had to have lost their job through no fault of their own. These people are not dead-beats as some pathetic politicians and pundits like to portray them. They were laid off because the economy tanked and business dried up, not because they quit or were fired. We can't ignore the ballooning debt, but we can't let it paralyze us from doing what's needed to restart the economy either. Unfortunately no single thing will get the national debt under control. Dealing with debt is like losing weight. It can't be done overnight and it's going to require long term changes and willpower. Where it gets tough is when the recovery is complete, the storm clouds part and the sun returns. That's when we need that fervor to attack the problem because it's always more difficult to focus on cuts and and spending reductions when the cash is flowing. America must be ready and willing to demand action on the debt when we have the resources to do so and not fall back into spending it as fast as we get it. As a nation we are so fond of declaring wars on things, so why not a War on Debt? Not only would that be a winnable war, but one with concrete benefits for Americas future. When we've climbed out of this recession, let's focus on reducing government spending through cuts and changing the way we do things. For one thing, let's reduce our military commitments overseas. I'm not just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, though to be sure both of these wars are costing us dearly. We don't need 50,000 troops in Germany anymore. We don't need tens of thousands in Japan or most of the other countries where we continue to maintain huge active duty forces. Most of these Cold War era military commitments are no longer needed. I'm not saying we should pull out everyone from everywhere, but there is no reason for the manpower commitments we currently maintain. America is capable of dealing with the financial crisis and then paying down the debt. What we have, up to this moment, been sorely lacking is the will to do so.
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Hot Potato
As much as some politicians hoped fervently to avoid it, there are signs that the immigration issue will rear its politically dangerous head prior to the mid-term elections. It's dangerous because no one is really sure how it will affect voters. The flap over Arizona's recent immigration law has sparked a lot of debate, and lawsuits, both for and against the law and has kept immigration in the public's consciousness. This seems to be forcing the issue into the political spotlight. President Obama essentially conceded this point with last week's speech on the need for comprehensive immigration reform.
As the President pointed out, we seem frozen between the two poles of this issue. On one side are those who say that anyone here illegally must go and go now. They say that we need to fence off our borders and bolster our border security so that we can seal the borders up tight. This is unwise, unworkable and unlikely to actually work. Logistically it is all but impossible to deport the 11 million plus who are in the US illegally. Financially it would cost immense sums of money to attempt and stress the economy dearly in a time when we cannot afford more instability. Nationalistically it is absurd to attempt to turn America into a walled citadel. That sort of thing has been attempted in the past by ancient China and Rome with little lasting effect. For a nation that was built by immigrants, it seems awfully arrogant to stand up now and say it was fine when our grandparents did it, but it's somehow different now.
On the other side are those who call for a blanket amnesty for all who are in this country illegally. They say that it's the moral thing to do. But this ignores two major facts that the President noted in his speech. The first is that those here illegally are, quite literally, here in violation of US law. This can't just be ignored. The second point is that a great many immigrants are right now going through all the dance steps and jumping through all the hoops required to become a citizen. To grant amnesty to all of those who live here illegally would spit in the face of all who are doing it legally. And it tells those considering crossing the border, be it land or sea, that there is no real punishment if they come to America and get caught. In other words, why go through the work and cost of doing it legally when you can get the same result by just sneaking over the border and hiding out for a while?
So that leaves us with the need to compromise. I oppose a blanket amnesty for the reasons I stated above, but I do think a path to citizenship makes sense. Of course there must be required steps to get there and individuals here illegally must not be allowed to 'jump the line' ahead of those who have done everything right. Among the hurdles I've seen that make sense is some sort of background check to look for any criminal activity. Another is a requirement to learn English. Learning the language seems like a small requirement for someone who, presumably, wants to become an American. It's not about abandoning your heritage, it's about adapting to your new country and not expecting that country to adapt to you. This does also bring up the fact that America does not have an official language. This is something I believe needs to be rectified. Some may say that making English the official language is exclusionary, but that's ridiculous. I think it's more exclusionary to leave it as a free for all. As things stand now English already is the de facto standard, however the lack of a national code or amendment leaves too much ambiguity. In fact, in one case I stumbled upon when looking at this subject a Texas border town actually voted to make Spanish the official language due to the high Hispanic population. While I understand why they did it, this is the sort of thing that shows how the issue needs to be settled on a national scale. An official language should not be a State or town issue, it's clearly something that falls under the Federal government. Besides, is it a problem for Italy to make Italian the official language or Germany to make German the official language? I think it behooves us to make this vague area clear on a national level.
I believe that immigration is generally a good thing. Some of the more strident voices I've heard against immigration seem to view them all as nothing but a drain on society. This is preposterous. Even if immigrants are payed in cash, under the table, they are still part of the economy. Every tank of gas they buy is taxed. Every bag of groceries they buy is taxed. Every piece of furniture? Taxed. And every time they patronize a store or restaurant they are supporting the economy. So while illegal immigrants may be contributing less than those here legally, they are far from leeches sucking the life out of the country. Like most things, this controversy would do well with some level headed, logical compromise and a lot less emotional rhetoric. Of course in an election year that's about as likely as Limbaugh voting Democrat.
As the President pointed out, we seem frozen between the two poles of this issue. On one side are those who say that anyone here illegally must go and go now. They say that we need to fence off our borders and bolster our border security so that we can seal the borders up tight. This is unwise, unworkable and unlikely to actually work. Logistically it is all but impossible to deport the 11 million plus who are in the US illegally. Financially it would cost immense sums of money to attempt and stress the economy dearly in a time when we cannot afford more instability. Nationalistically it is absurd to attempt to turn America into a walled citadel. That sort of thing has been attempted in the past by ancient China and Rome with little lasting effect. For a nation that was built by immigrants, it seems awfully arrogant to stand up now and say it was fine when our grandparents did it, but it's somehow different now.
On the other side are those who call for a blanket amnesty for all who are in this country illegally. They say that it's the moral thing to do. But this ignores two major facts that the President noted in his speech. The first is that those here illegally are, quite literally, here in violation of US law. This can't just be ignored. The second point is that a great many immigrants are right now going through all the dance steps and jumping through all the hoops required to become a citizen. To grant amnesty to all of those who live here illegally would spit in the face of all who are doing it legally. And it tells those considering crossing the border, be it land or sea, that there is no real punishment if they come to America and get caught. In other words, why go through the work and cost of doing it legally when you can get the same result by just sneaking over the border and hiding out for a while?
So that leaves us with the need to compromise. I oppose a blanket amnesty for the reasons I stated above, but I do think a path to citizenship makes sense. Of course there must be required steps to get there and individuals here illegally must not be allowed to 'jump the line' ahead of those who have done everything right. Among the hurdles I've seen that make sense is some sort of background check to look for any criminal activity. Another is a requirement to learn English. Learning the language seems like a small requirement for someone who, presumably, wants to become an American. It's not about abandoning your heritage, it's about adapting to your new country and not expecting that country to adapt to you. This does also bring up the fact that America does not have an official language. This is something I believe needs to be rectified. Some may say that making English the official language is exclusionary, but that's ridiculous. I think it's more exclusionary to leave it as a free for all. As things stand now English already is the de facto standard, however the lack of a national code or amendment leaves too much ambiguity. In fact, in one case I stumbled upon when looking at this subject a Texas border town actually voted to make Spanish the official language due to the high Hispanic population. While I understand why they did it, this is the sort of thing that shows how the issue needs to be settled on a national scale. An official language should not be a State or town issue, it's clearly something that falls under the Federal government. Besides, is it a problem for Italy to make Italian the official language or Germany to make German the official language? I think it behooves us to make this vague area clear on a national level.
I believe that immigration is generally a good thing. Some of the more strident voices I've heard against immigration seem to view them all as nothing but a drain on society. This is preposterous. Even if immigrants are payed in cash, under the table, they are still part of the economy. Every tank of gas they buy is taxed. Every bag of groceries they buy is taxed. Every piece of furniture? Taxed. And every time they patronize a store or restaurant they are supporting the economy. So while illegal immigrants may be contributing less than those here legally, they are far from leeches sucking the life out of the country. Like most things, this controversy would do well with some level headed, logical compromise and a lot less emotional rhetoric. Of course in an election year that's about as likely as Limbaugh voting Democrat.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Stepping into the Glare
Everyone has their view on November's mid-term elections. Some, particularly those on the Right, are predicting major gains by the Republicans. History does show that the next election following a party change in the White House almost always brings losses for the party in power. Some of the more fanciful among them even crow that the results will sweep the Democrats out of the majority in both houses. This is highly unlikely as it would require a huge change in representation to bring those sorts of results. My take on the coming elections is that it is likely to be messy, but I doubt it will herald a significant swing in Congress one way or the other. Contrary to the so called conventional wisdom I don't think you will see any widespread ousting of incumbents. It will happen here and there, but probably not on any grand scale. While there is some incumbent distrust, particularly from the Right, it has yet to really show up as a significant issue in the primaries so far. Only a couple incumbents have been pushed out of the race so far. But the Tea Party movement has managed to make some inroads in several races with primary wins, particularly in Kentucky with Rand Paul and in Nevada with Sharon Angle. The problem is that once these candidates step out of their political comfort zone in their party's primaries and into the general election, their far Right and in some cases 'wing-nut Right' views become problematic.
Kentucky's Rand Paul, son of former Presidential hopeful and Republican Congressman Ron Paul, rode the Tea Party wave to beat the establishment choice who was backed by Senator McConnell and other mainstream Republicans. Almost immediately though he found himself in the center of a controversy as soon as he stepped out of the primary and onto the stage of the general election. In interviews with NPR and later Rachel Maddow his solidly Libertarian philosophy of a very limited Federal government was lit up in neon when the subject of the 1964 Civil Rights act came up. While affirming his general support he couldn't stop himself from making it clear that he did have an issue with the part of the law that would require private businesses who served the public to stop discriminating based on race or ethnic criteria. Put simply, he seems to feel that when it comes to a private business, the Federal government should not step in to force compliance of non-discrimination. It should be left essentially to market forces to decide the issue. In other words, if a restaurant discriminates in who it will serve, then the free market will punish them over time and eventually force them to make changes. It fits into the general Libertarian view of a small, generally hands off central government. Some, of course, began to accuse him of racism, which he denied, saying he was against discrimination and wouldn't patronize a club or business that did and I believe him. I don't think, strictly speaking, that he is a racist, but this does point to a social stand that I think is very much a minority viewpoint. Especially once you step outside the Conservative side of the political landscape.
In Nevada, Sharon Angle won in a crowded field of challengers all vying for a chance to face Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. The primary included Sue Lowden who became infamous for her suggestion that healthcare costs could be reduced if we returned to the golden age of barter; for example, paying your doctor with a chicken or offering to paint his house. I find myself concerned about the house painting idea as it may well clash with your need for medical attention. But Sharon Angle won out and has now been thrust into the general election which requires more exposure to the glare of non-Conservative media. Suddenly her remarks from previous months and years are finding their way into the public consciousness and some people, me included, are thinking she may have some significant baggage in tow. First are various statements she has made over the last 6 months that have all been variations on the same theme. In January during a radio interview she stated: "If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies . . ." Now I know what this statement, and the others using almost identical language, sounds like to me but I'd be interested to hear her clarification, except now that she is out of the Republican primary she is determined to side-step questions about this that are understandably coming from the local and mainstream media. In one confrontation with a local reporter who asked her about the quote, instead of answering this question and others in the same vein, she kept telling the reporter to "go ask Harry Reid.” It was a classic case of a politician who was trying very hard to only deal with the Conservative media and got surprised by someone who actually wanted her to defend her positions. Among her other stated concerns are an interest in getting rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, transitioning Social Security into a private system and concerns about fluoridation of drinking water. This last hearkens back to the heyday of Communist conspiracy theories in the 1950s. Dr. Strangelove aficionados will undoubtedly crack a smile or maybe even have a good chuckle at the reference.
Both of these candidates have the exact same problem. Their campaigns have focused heavily on the Conservative base so they could win Republican primaries, but in so doing they have had to ride on policy ideas and beliefs that appealed to the core Conservative constituencies. Unfortunately for them, the core of the Conservative movement has, over the last couple years, side stepped several yards to the right of what it was previously. This means the candidates are in a difficult position in a general state election where they will require the support of moderate and independent voters to win. However the very strengths that won them the party primaries are now being used against them by their Democratic opponents. This is what I think we are going to see, writ large, in the run-up to the mid-term elections: Conservative candidates riding high as they come out of primary victories, but then being bloodied badly as they come into contact with the rest of the voting populace. Both of these candidates are doing their best to avoid this by sheltering under the cover of Conservative media outlets. Doing everything they can to limit exposure to 'unfriendly' journalists, in other words any reporter who won't smile and agree with everything they say. It will be interesting to see how this will work. It didn't help Sarah Palin in her 2008 Vice Presidential run. Once she found herself unable to avoid talking to more main stream media outlets the number of quotes and policy positions that made moderates go, "Huh?!" rose sharply and the McCain/Palin campaign staff was required to waste a lot of time and energy to attempt damage control. Ultimately these encounters with actual journalists cost the McCain-Palin campaign more votes than Palin's young, brash, outsider status brought in. While she has since found a strange sort of cult celebrity, she is not taken seriously by anyone outside the far Right. And therein lies the crux of the problem. In a time when the Republican Right wing is pulling the whole party farther from the Middle and almost demonizing Moderate views, many Republican candidates are entering the general elections with massive gaps between themselves and their Democratic opponents. The danger for them is that Independents and Moderates might actually be more inclined to vote for a conservative Democrat over a far Right Republican whose ideas seem out of touch with the general public. I think a number of these new Conservative stars are going to stumble badly as moderates and independents discover more and more about them.
Kentucky's Rand Paul, son of former Presidential hopeful and Republican Congressman Ron Paul, rode the Tea Party wave to beat the establishment choice who was backed by Senator McConnell and other mainstream Republicans. Almost immediately though he found himself in the center of a controversy as soon as he stepped out of the primary and onto the stage of the general election. In interviews with NPR and later Rachel Maddow his solidly Libertarian philosophy of a very limited Federal government was lit up in neon when the subject of the 1964 Civil Rights act came up. While affirming his general support he couldn't stop himself from making it clear that he did have an issue with the part of the law that would require private businesses who served the public to stop discriminating based on race or ethnic criteria. Put simply, he seems to feel that when it comes to a private business, the Federal government should not step in to force compliance of non-discrimination. It should be left essentially to market forces to decide the issue. In other words, if a restaurant discriminates in who it will serve, then the free market will punish them over time and eventually force them to make changes. It fits into the general Libertarian view of a small, generally hands off central government. Some, of course, began to accuse him of racism, which he denied, saying he was against discrimination and wouldn't patronize a club or business that did and I believe him. I don't think, strictly speaking, that he is a racist, but this does point to a social stand that I think is very much a minority viewpoint. Especially once you step outside the Conservative side of the political landscape.
In Nevada, Sharon Angle won in a crowded field of challengers all vying for a chance to face Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. The primary included Sue Lowden who became infamous for her suggestion that healthcare costs could be reduced if we returned to the golden age of barter; for example, paying your doctor with a chicken or offering to paint his house. I find myself concerned about the house painting idea as it may well clash with your need for medical attention. But Sharon Angle won out and has now been thrust into the general election which requires more exposure to the glare of non-Conservative media. Suddenly her remarks from previous months and years are finding their way into the public consciousness and some people, me included, are thinking she may have some significant baggage in tow. First are various statements she has made over the last 6 months that have all been variations on the same theme. In January during a radio interview she stated: "If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies . . ." Now I know what this statement, and the others using almost identical language, sounds like to me but I'd be interested to hear her clarification, except now that she is out of the Republican primary she is determined to side-step questions about this that are understandably coming from the local and mainstream media. In one confrontation with a local reporter who asked her about the quote, instead of answering this question and others in the same vein, she kept telling the reporter to "go ask Harry Reid.” It was a classic case of a politician who was trying very hard to only deal with the Conservative media and got surprised by someone who actually wanted her to defend her positions. Among her other stated concerns are an interest in getting rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, transitioning Social Security into a private system and concerns about fluoridation of drinking water. This last hearkens back to the heyday of Communist conspiracy theories in the 1950s. Dr. Strangelove aficionados will undoubtedly crack a smile or maybe even have a good chuckle at the reference.
Both of these candidates have the exact same problem. Their campaigns have focused heavily on the Conservative base so they could win Republican primaries, but in so doing they have had to ride on policy ideas and beliefs that appealed to the core Conservative constituencies. Unfortunately for them, the core of the Conservative movement has, over the last couple years, side stepped several yards to the right of what it was previously. This means the candidates are in a difficult position in a general state election where they will require the support of moderate and independent voters to win. However the very strengths that won them the party primaries are now being used against them by their Democratic opponents. This is what I think we are going to see, writ large, in the run-up to the mid-term elections: Conservative candidates riding high as they come out of primary victories, but then being bloodied badly as they come into contact with the rest of the voting populace. Both of these candidates are doing their best to avoid this by sheltering under the cover of Conservative media outlets. Doing everything they can to limit exposure to 'unfriendly' journalists, in other words any reporter who won't smile and agree with everything they say. It will be interesting to see how this will work. It didn't help Sarah Palin in her 2008 Vice Presidential run. Once she found herself unable to avoid talking to more main stream media outlets the number of quotes and policy positions that made moderates go, "Huh?!" rose sharply and the McCain/Palin campaign staff was required to waste a lot of time and energy to attempt damage control. Ultimately these encounters with actual journalists cost the McCain-Palin campaign more votes than Palin's young, brash, outsider status brought in. While she has since found a strange sort of cult celebrity, she is not taken seriously by anyone outside the far Right. And therein lies the crux of the problem. In a time when the Republican Right wing is pulling the whole party farther from the Middle and almost demonizing Moderate views, many Republican candidates are entering the general elections with massive gaps between themselves and their Democratic opponents. The danger for them is that Independents and Moderates might actually be more inclined to vote for a conservative Democrat over a far Right Republican whose ideas seem out of touch with the general public. I think a number of these new Conservative stars are going to stumble badly as moderates and independents discover more and more about them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
