50%, plus one.
This is a terrifying way to run things. How many evil things have been justified in the name of "majority rule"? How many times has the majority been shown to be either A: a highly vocal minority, or B: just plain wrong? Hard telling.
I find it almost comical that we're still having this argument. Its tellingly ironic that those people who claim to be the great protectors of personal liberties (yeah, I mean the barking dogs of the right) are the loudest and most aggrieved opponents of same-sex marriage. As with smoking, I'm not a participant, but I don't see the bloody problem. ...as always however, let me start with basic principles.
...you know what. Fuck it.
Normally I'd do a detailed and scathing assault on the likes of Hannity, Beck and the rest of the trogs, but I'm not up to it tonight.
Let me just strip this whole thing to the bones: There is a large segment of society, maybe or maybe not an actual majority, which is determined to stop another segment from enjoying the same civil liberties as themselves. Why? It doesn't matter why, its fucking wrong.
I cannot grasp this. What sort of bizarro world are we living in where I have to defend the freedoms of my fellow human beings in the United States of America? Last time I checked, personal freedom was supposed to be assumed, not subject to authentification.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Tu Quieres Con Papas?
Let’s cut to the chase. Disenfranchisement is a scary idea.
Nobody likes the thought that suddenly their voice isn’t going to be counted any more. The idea of suddenly losing the power to control your own life is effing frightening and for good reason. Disenfranchisement can so easily lead to exploitation, loss of civil liberties and exclusion from the best opportunities on offer in modern life.
Many people around the world, throughout the course of history, have killed and died over the issue; many others have never known that there was even something to be missed. Unsurprisingly, those who’ve known what its like to be one the powerless minority are frequently the most vocal supporters of expanding the franchise and including as many people as possible. Also unsurprisingly, those who’ve never not been a part of the franchise are generally the ones least inclined to be very supportive of such actions. This is hardly a shock in a system reliant upon elected representation; when numbers of votes dictate who has the power, any sensible faction would commit all available resources to monopolizing as many votes as possible.
This is true of the general electorate, of the houses of legislature…and of the members of the Supreme Court. Enter Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
So why am I rambling on about the franchise and minorities? Well what the hell exactly is it you think the Elephants are so scared of? This nomination represents, in a single stroke, not one but two demographic variations from what they are comfortable with. She’s Hispanic and a woman. The combination represents a total unknown for them and the unknown, as we all know, is the single most terrifying thing in the world to a conservative. Compounding the problem is the little issue of numbers I mentioned above; there are a fixed number of seats on the bench and therefore a limited amount of power. If some of that power goes to Sotomayor and whatever it is she represents, then there must, by definition, be less available to the grey-faced, old, white men. Now you see where I’m going with this?
Having said this though, we need to be honest with ourselves; the fear of the Elephants is real. It isn’t contrived or an act. Think hard and look back to the first sentence I put up there at the top.
Its easy to disparage the angry white man as a stereotype. We see him as an ignorant, insensitive, arrogant, shot-sighted bastard. At best, comically self-defeating and at worst actively and successfully malevolent, it is far too easy to forget that there is a real person behind it with real feelings, real fears such as suddenly finding themselves disenfranchised. This is not an apology; my Caucasian brothers are dead wrong when they let themselves descend to racism, sexism or religious bigotry. This is merely an attempt to explain the mechanism driving it. It is also an attempt to point out the glaring flaw, the painfully obvious point of origin of the problem. In a word: hypocrisy.
Unlike certain right-wing leaders, I will not make a claim of being able (or even willing) to read the minds of a collection of Enlightenment scholars and diplomats who’ve been dead for 200 years. It may well be that they were all a pack of small-minded, misogynistic racists and bigots; I choose to think better of them and believe that, despite the practical realities of the time, they really meant for all men (as a species, not a gender) to be equals. The work they left us certainly seems to back me in this. What is inescapable however is that we, their inheritors, have failed to uphold such an ideal and that is why the Elephants are afraid and have been for so long. A long legacy of disenfranchisement of the minorities has lead them to believe, perhaps rightly, that such their fate.
The fallacy of this line of thinking is obvious but seems feeble in the face of far more visceral fear. The argument from the Elephants is that somebody has to hold the lash and they are far happier being the ones doing the holding. They cannot, emotionally, grasp the idea that we can throw it away.
Nobody likes the thought that suddenly their voice isn’t going to be counted any more. The idea of suddenly losing the power to control your own life is effing frightening and for good reason. Disenfranchisement can so easily lead to exploitation, loss of civil liberties and exclusion from the best opportunities on offer in modern life.
Many people around the world, throughout the course of history, have killed and died over the issue; many others have never known that there was even something to be missed. Unsurprisingly, those who’ve known what its like to be one the powerless minority are frequently the most vocal supporters of expanding the franchise and including as many people as possible. Also unsurprisingly, those who’ve never not been a part of the franchise are generally the ones least inclined to be very supportive of such actions. This is hardly a shock in a system reliant upon elected representation; when numbers of votes dictate who has the power, any sensible faction would commit all available resources to monopolizing as many votes as possible.
This is true of the general electorate, of the houses of legislature…and of the members of the Supreme Court. Enter Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
So why am I rambling on about the franchise and minorities? Well what the hell exactly is it you think the Elephants are so scared of? This nomination represents, in a single stroke, not one but two demographic variations from what they are comfortable with. She’s Hispanic and a woman. The combination represents a total unknown for them and the unknown, as we all know, is the single most terrifying thing in the world to a conservative. Compounding the problem is the little issue of numbers I mentioned above; there are a fixed number of seats on the bench and therefore a limited amount of power. If some of that power goes to Sotomayor and whatever it is she represents, then there must, by definition, be less available to the grey-faced, old, white men. Now you see where I’m going with this?
Having said this though, we need to be honest with ourselves; the fear of the Elephants is real. It isn’t contrived or an act. Think hard and look back to the first sentence I put up there at the top.
Its easy to disparage the angry white man as a stereotype. We see him as an ignorant, insensitive, arrogant, shot-sighted bastard. At best, comically self-defeating and at worst actively and successfully malevolent, it is far too easy to forget that there is a real person behind it with real feelings, real fears such as suddenly finding themselves disenfranchised. This is not an apology; my Caucasian brothers are dead wrong when they let themselves descend to racism, sexism or religious bigotry. This is merely an attempt to explain the mechanism driving it. It is also an attempt to point out the glaring flaw, the painfully obvious point of origin of the problem. In a word: hypocrisy.
Unlike certain right-wing leaders, I will not make a claim of being able (or even willing) to read the minds of a collection of Enlightenment scholars and diplomats who’ve been dead for 200 years. It may well be that they were all a pack of small-minded, misogynistic racists and bigots; I choose to think better of them and believe that, despite the practical realities of the time, they really meant for all men (as a species, not a gender) to be equals. The work they left us certainly seems to back me in this. What is inescapable however is that we, their inheritors, have failed to uphold such an ideal and that is why the Elephants are afraid and have been for so long. A long legacy of disenfranchisement of the minorities has lead them to believe, perhaps rightly, that such their fate.
The fallacy of this line of thinking is obvious but seems feeble in the face of far more visceral fear. The argument from the Elephants is that somebody has to hold the lash and they are far happier being the ones doing the holding. They cannot, emotionally, grasp the idea that we can throw it away.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Ask Not
As President, John Kennedy (may he rest) once challenged this nation to rise to an impossible challenge; to do something that had never before been done and whose feasibility was questionable at best. He challenged to go to the moon and return safely. We rose to that challenge and the history of what came of it is writ large.
In the current day, Barrack Obama has challenged us to do a task which may well be just as, if not more, monumental but whose parameters are known to us. To move away from unsustainable energy policies and invest instead in cleaner, more efficient technologies such as personal cars powered by alternative energy and efficient mass transit systems. I've talked about this before and hope that I communicated my points well.
What has me so absolutely agitated today is the attitude of the silly buggers at "The Cato Institute". Okay, I get the whole differing view thing. I myself would start getting nervous if everyone suddenly started agreeing all the time. On the other hand, if your going to be a productive contributor, aren't you supposed to follow up your objections with alternatives? This is not what I'm getting from Jerry Taylor and Randal O' Toole. There chief objection seems to be, boiled down, "It's expensive!"
Exactly how much are these guys getting paid? Of course its going to be expensive! Strange as it may seem, that's part of the point. You get money circulating by spending it; on workers, equipment, land purchases and a host of other less obvious expenses involved in building infrastructure. Let me move on to specific arguments however...I'll start with Brother Jerry.
Taylor open by simply attacking the MPG plan, specifically pointing out that,
"If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only two cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg) and the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg) — would meet the standard."
Has anyone bothered to point out that it isn't 2016 yet? Exactly what point is it that Taylor is trying to make here? That if things were different, then things would be different? This is a nonsense reference designed only to make a future standard seem unreasonable in the present, and thereby elicit a negative emotional response in the reader. This is then directed and amplified in a blatant case of vilification;
"Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching "gas guzzlers" such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg)."
In the first place, Taylor conjures an image of eco-jihadis viciously vandalizing other people's property and in the second he invents an intolerance towards three specific, excellent examples of perfectly reasonable transition technology. Taken as a whole the paragraph serves no purpose beyond demagoguery. In the immediately following paragraph, Taylor appeals to the authority of mathematics and simultaneously reaches for the middle ground while highlighting a"confession" from the administration.
"There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty."
Implementation of new technologies is going to raise costs? Seriously? That's your argument? I seem to recall a similar argument being forwarded in the debate over vehicle safety equipment. Additionally, having bought two cars myself, I can honestly say that the additional $600, when I know I'm getting a better product, isn't a problem. Particularly when the "better" relates to fuel efficiency in an era when we are at or near peak oil as well as facing a global environmental crisis.
Corporate profits will decline? Really? Well perhaps this is a moment when the much vaunted innovative power of the market to reduce costs and improve process could be brought to bear. It might just result in more market competition, yielding better, stronger, more nimble manufacturing corporations. Heck, it might just result in the development of improved technologies with unforeseen knock-on applications.
So then Taylor goes on to talk about how little benefit will be garnered by these terrible reforms;
"We wouldn't reduce our reliance on foreign oil: If we reduced global demand for crude oil, the most expensive-to-produce oil would go away first, and that oil is not in the Middle East. It's in North America."
What he completely ignores are the actual numbers involved. in 2007 the U.S. produced 5,064,000 barrels/day and imported 10,031,000 barrels/day. Our oil exports were just 1,433,000 barrels/day. We're using up roughly three times what we produce. New technologies use roughly half the fuel of vehicles built just back in the 1990's. Basic math here; if you only produce 1/3 of the oil you use and you then reduce what you use by 1/2...you have to get the difference from your imports, so yes, you do in fact reduce your reliance on foreign oil even if you take out your domestic production first.
"Consumers would not be better off: If gasoline prices remained in today's neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices."
The flaws in this are so obvious it hurts me to point them out. In the first place, you have to make an assumption that runs totally counter to reason: that gas prices remain the same. Basic economics; what happens when demand for a commodity drops? That's right, the price drops. Basic logic; what happens when cars uses less gas? That's right, demand drops! So, logically if we use less gas, thus lowering demand, price of gas drops. A preceding argument stated that sticker prices could go up in the neighborhood of $600; so that's between 30 to 40 tanks of fuel, which is easily accounted for in the first 1.5 years of the average vehicle. So in the second place, yes, the extra cost up front is paid for in fuel savings.
"Moreover, many consumers would be forced to buy cars they don't want."
Except that consumers do want to buy more fuel efficient cars and there several monetary incentives to do so, such as tax credits. Additionally, what consumers what to buy is, in a practical sense, dictated by what is on the market to begin with. For instance, I don't want to buy a fossil fuel driven vehicle at all. I want a hydrogen powered one, my choices are limited to what is on the market, however.
"Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere."
Right, and why should we do the right thing if nobody else does? Maybe for the same reason we didn't replace our old king with a new one and went with a representative democracy instead. Maybe because its the right thing to do. Its called leadership and has been generally lacking from our domestic policy for a while. Additionally, if you need a good market motivator, consider the value of exporting said technology to those other nations.
Next we come to the traditional vague implication of threat;
"Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities."
Actually, its irresponsible, dangerous drivers that cause those highway injuries and fatalities. This is a spineless adoption of the "blame the object" argument so many pro-gun advocates deride. What's true of one inanimate object is true of the other; cars don't cause accidents, people cause accidents. Also, however exactly does he reach the conclusion that a smaller, lighter car will cause more damage than a bigger, heavier one? It runs counter to all logic.
One thing Taylor gets absolutely right is calling fuel efficiency "a means to an ends". That is absolutely true. Where he fails is in implying that this particular means is supposed to be sufficient unto itself to achieve that end. It isn't, obviously, but it is necessary to that end. Speaking of which, let me move on to Brother Randal's bit of tripe. It seems obvious to me that they split the issues in an attempt to divide attention and create an illusion of these being completely unrelated issues.
"At first glance, President Obama's enthusiasm for building a high-speed rail network linking major cities seems like a wise move. On closer inspection, however, it is clear that the plan would cost taxpayers billions of dollars and do little to reduce traffic congestion or improve the environment."
Okay, first lets look at the framing of the paragraph; it creates the impression that there are multiple layers to this proposal and that the "second" layer, the cost, is somehow obscured. Only two possible interpretations present themselves: this is unintentional and suggestive of incompetence or else it is intentional and suggestive of deception. Does Brother Randal really think people are so stupid that they wouldn't understand the project is going to carry a hefty price tag? One should hope so, because if he doesn't one might be inclined to think he was trying to be manipulative.
O'Toole here has far more clever rhetorical command than Taylor, he spaces his positions and explanations which makes it more difficult, at a glance, to argue with him. So we have to jump around a bit.
"Obama's 9,000-mile high-speed rail plan reaches just 33 states, yet the $13 billion he proposes to spend would cover about 2.5% to 25% of the cost, depending on how the system is built."
Okay, let's don't forget the $13 billion is called, specifically, a down payment; as in, more to follow. Only an idiot is going to honestly believe that this transit network could possibly get built that cheap. Secondly, "just those 33 states" accounts for the overwhelming majority of private and commercial traffic. I'm a truck driver, I know; you don't need a high-sped from Boise to El Paso. Of course the implication of this bit is really to make people angry about a "secret" future tax hike, which is probable; what it ignore however is that when it comes to concrete services, people suddenly get a great deal less resentful.
"Most of Obama's plan should really be called "moderate-speed rail," as it would upgrade existing freight lines to run passenger trains at top speeds of 110 mph. At around $5 million per mile, the total cost would come close to $50 billion."
Here we again see the tactic of implied deceit paired with a "revelation". I listened to the speech myself and Obama said himself that a large part of the project on the front end would be exactly this sort of upgrade. Is anyone really surprised by this? Is anyone really surprised that its going to be expensive? Again, that's part of the point; that money isn't going to just magically vanish, its going to get paid to workers, fabricators and engineers as well as a whole slew of other private sector economic drivers.
"Not satisfied with moderate-speed trains, California says it wants half of all federal funds so it can build brand-new 220-mph rail lines. But it's unlikely other states will settle for the slower trains if California gets the faster ones. Building fast trains nationwide would cost at least $500 billion."
Right, unsurprisingly we have vilification of California for implied decadence, followed by the further implication that the other states will make unreasonable demands so that they can "keep up" capped off with a paternal and patronizing monetary flourish.
"Besides the high costs, these trains do little to relieve congestion. "Not a single high-speed track built to date has had any perceptible impact on the road traffic" in Europe, says Ari Vatanen, a European Parliament member. California predicts its 220-mph trains would take just 3.5% of cars off of roads. California highway traffic grows that much every two years."
I love it when guys like O'Toole try to borrow the authority of foreign officials; its as if they feel they can gain credibility by sounding cosmopolitan. Let me tell something about Monsieur Vatanen. For starters, his credentials as an MP are: he was a famous race car driver. His credentials as an analyst of traffic statistics vis a vis mass transit are: he's an MP...who used to be a race car driver. Did we mention he's currently a member of the French Union for a Popular Movement, which is the native analog of the Republican party? Are we surprised that a Cato writer is citing the man, incompletely and without reference? Also, exactly what is the source of O'Toole's traffic statistics in California? Can can we possibly get some verification of claims?
"Moderate-speed trains would do even less. Nor would such trains be good for the environment. Amtrak diesel trains are only a little more energy efficient than flying or driving, and pumping those trains up to 110 mph would reduce their efficiency. Because planes and cars are growing 2% more energy-efficient per year, rail would fare poorly by such measures over the next 15 to 20 years.
Moreover, high-speed rail consumes enormous amounts of energy and emits enormous volumes of greenhouse gases. These would cancel out any operational savings over cars and planes."
Except, once again, O'Toole follows the formula and winds up creating a false dilemma; fossil fuel rail or fossil fuel cars. As if electrifying the rail system just isn't an option because he choose not to discuss it. And before anyone gets started, yes, I know that the power has to come from somewhere; who says it has to be a coal fired plant? Or even a current-spec coal fired plant? Please.
Now, the next statement is interesting;
"Interstates paid for themselves out of gas taxes..."
It is interesting chiefly because it directly contradicts an earlier statement that I reserved until now, to contrast the two;
"In contrast with the interstate highway system, which paid for itself out of user fees..."
Now I am forced to conclude one of the following: O'Toole doesn't know what he's talking about, O'Toole is being deliberately misleading, or O'Toole simply neglected to say explicitly that a complex, heterogeneous combination of solutions are at times called for to address complex problems. For the sake of charity I will assume the latter of these.
And finally I want to address these two statements;
"Although every taxpayer would share the cost of these trains, high-speed rails are not about serving the common people. Instead, they are aimed at the elite."
-and-
"Rail requires huge tax subsidies and would regularly serve only a small elite. Which is the better symbol for the America President Obama wants to build?"
Now I can't speak for anyone else but when I lived in Bethesda, MD which itself is part of D.C.'s metro rail system I was hardly one of the "elite" (although O'Toole never deigns to define exactly what that means, so maybe I was!). I was a very junior sailor living in the barracks and learning my trade as an MLT. For just about a year and a half I used that transit system to go everywhere. More than that, I used the AmTrak hub at Union Station to go as far as NYC on several occasions and closer points regularly. Right now I'm one of the loudest (if not prominent or influential) voices for development of a similar system in Cincinnati, OH.
It utterly escapes me how a publicly available mass transit system, improving mobility for student and workers, could possibly be interpreted as being reserved for some mythical social "elite" in a country where private transportation has always been the hallmark of the upper-classes; from carriages to yachts to limousines to private jets, the elite have always been easily identified by such luxuries.
In the current day, Barrack Obama has challenged us to do a task which may well be just as, if not more, monumental but whose parameters are known to us. To move away from unsustainable energy policies and invest instead in cleaner, more efficient technologies such as personal cars powered by alternative energy and efficient mass transit systems. I've talked about this before and hope that I communicated my points well.
What has me so absolutely agitated today is the attitude of the silly buggers at "The Cato Institute". Okay, I get the whole differing view thing. I myself would start getting nervous if everyone suddenly started agreeing all the time. On the other hand, if your going to be a productive contributor, aren't you supposed to follow up your objections with alternatives? This is not what I'm getting from Jerry Taylor and Randal O' Toole. There chief objection seems to be, boiled down, "It's expensive!"
Exactly how much are these guys getting paid? Of course its going to be expensive! Strange as it may seem, that's part of the point. You get money circulating by spending it; on workers, equipment, land purchases and a host of other less obvious expenses involved in building infrastructure. Let me move on to specific arguments however...I'll start with Brother Jerry.
Taylor open by simply attacking the MPG plan, specifically pointing out that,
"If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only two cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg) and the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg) — would meet the standard."
Has anyone bothered to point out that it isn't 2016 yet? Exactly what point is it that Taylor is trying to make here? That if things were different, then things would be different? This is a nonsense reference designed only to make a future standard seem unreasonable in the present, and thereby elicit a negative emotional response in the reader. This is then directed and amplified in a blatant case of vilification;
"Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching "gas guzzlers" such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg)."
In the first place, Taylor conjures an image of eco-jihadis viciously vandalizing other people's property and in the second he invents an intolerance towards three specific, excellent examples of perfectly reasonable transition technology. Taken as a whole the paragraph serves no purpose beyond demagoguery. In the immediately following paragraph, Taylor appeals to the authority of mathematics and simultaneously reaches for the middle ground while highlighting a"confession" from the administration.
"There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty."
Implementation of new technologies is going to raise costs? Seriously? That's your argument? I seem to recall a similar argument being forwarded in the debate over vehicle safety equipment. Additionally, having bought two cars myself, I can honestly say that the additional $600, when I know I'm getting a better product, isn't a problem. Particularly when the "better" relates to fuel efficiency in an era when we are at or near peak oil as well as facing a global environmental crisis.
Corporate profits will decline? Really? Well perhaps this is a moment when the much vaunted innovative power of the market to reduce costs and improve process could be brought to bear. It might just result in more market competition, yielding better, stronger, more nimble manufacturing corporations. Heck, it might just result in the development of improved technologies with unforeseen knock-on applications.
So then Taylor goes on to talk about how little benefit will be garnered by these terrible reforms;
"We wouldn't reduce our reliance on foreign oil: If we reduced global demand for crude oil, the most expensive-to-produce oil would go away first, and that oil is not in the Middle East. It's in North America."
What he completely ignores are the actual numbers involved. in 2007 the U.S. produced 5,064,000 barrels/day and imported 10,031,000 barrels/day. Our oil exports were just 1,433,000 barrels/day. We're using up roughly three times what we produce. New technologies use roughly half the fuel of vehicles built just back in the 1990's. Basic math here; if you only produce 1/3 of the oil you use and you then reduce what you use by 1/2...you have to get the difference from your imports, so yes, you do in fact reduce your reliance on foreign oil even if you take out your domestic production first.
"Consumers would not be better off: If gasoline prices remained in today's neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices."
The flaws in this are so obvious it hurts me to point them out. In the first place, you have to make an assumption that runs totally counter to reason: that gas prices remain the same. Basic economics; what happens when demand for a commodity drops? That's right, the price drops. Basic logic; what happens when cars uses less gas? That's right, demand drops! So, logically if we use less gas, thus lowering demand, price of gas drops. A preceding argument stated that sticker prices could go up in the neighborhood of $600; so that's between 30 to 40 tanks of fuel, which is easily accounted for in the first 1.5 years of the average vehicle. So in the second place, yes, the extra cost up front is paid for in fuel savings.
"Moreover, many consumers would be forced to buy cars they don't want."
Except that consumers do want to buy more fuel efficient cars and there several monetary incentives to do so, such as tax credits. Additionally, what consumers what to buy is, in a practical sense, dictated by what is on the market to begin with. For instance, I don't want to buy a fossil fuel driven vehicle at all. I want a hydrogen powered one, my choices are limited to what is on the market, however.
"Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere."
Right, and why should we do the right thing if nobody else does? Maybe for the same reason we didn't replace our old king with a new one and went with a representative democracy instead. Maybe because its the right thing to do. Its called leadership and has been generally lacking from our domestic policy for a while. Additionally, if you need a good market motivator, consider the value of exporting said technology to those other nations.
Next we come to the traditional vague implication of threat;
"Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities."
Actually, its irresponsible, dangerous drivers that cause those highway injuries and fatalities. This is a spineless adoption of the "blame the object" argument so many pro-gun advocates deride. What's true of one inanimate object is true of the other; cars don't cause accidents, people cause accidents. Also, however exactly does he reach the conclusion that a smaller, lighter car will cause more damage than a bigger, heavier one? It runs counter to all logic.
One thing Taylor gets absolutely right is calling fuel efficiency "a means to an ends". That is absolutely true. Where he fails is in implying that this particular means is supposed to be sufficient unto itself to achieve that end. It isn't, obviously, but it is necessary to that end. Speaking of which, let me move on to Brother Randal's bit of tripe. It seems obvious to me that they split the issues in an attempt to divide attention and create an illusion of these being completely unrelated issues.
"At first glance, President Obama's enthusiasm for building a high-speed rail network linking major cities seems like a wise move. On closer inspection, however, it is clear that the plan would cost taxpayers billions of dollars and do little to reduce traffic congestion or improve the environment."
Okay, first lets look at the framing of the paragraph; it creates the impression that there are multiple layers to this proposal and that the "second" layer, the cost, is somehow obscured. Only two possible interpretations present themselves: this is unintentional and suggestive of incompetence or else it is intentional and suggestive of deception. Does Brother Randal really think people are so stupid that they wouldn't understand the project is going to carry a hefty price tag? One should hope so, because if he doesn't one might be inclined to think he was trying to be manipulative.
O'Toole here has far more clever rhetorical command than Taylor, he spaces his positions and explanations which makes it more difficult, at a glance, to argue with him. So we have to jump around a bit.
"Obama's 9,000-mile high-speed rail plan reaches just 33 states, yet the $13 billion he proposes to spend would cover about 2.5% to 25% of the cost, depending on how the system is built."
Okay, let's don't forget the $13 billion is called, specifically, a down payment; as in, more to follow. Only an idiot is going to honestly believe that this transit network could possibly get built that cheap. Secondly, "just those 33 states" accounts for the overwhelming majority of private and commercial traffic. I'm a truck driver, I know; you don't need a high-sped from Boise to El Paso. Of course the implication of this bit is really to make people angry about a "secret" future tax hike, which is probable; what it ignore however is that when it comes to concrete services, people suddenly get a great deal less resentful.
"Most of Obama's plan should really be called "moderate-speed rail," as it would upgrade existing freight lines to run passenger trains at top speeds of 110 mph. At around $5 million per mile, the total cost would come close to $50 billion."
Here we again see the tactic of implied deceit paired with a "revelation". I listened to the speech myself and Obama said himself that a large part of the project on the front end would be exactly this sort of upgrade. Is anyone really surprised by this? Is anyone really surprised that its going to be expensive? Again, that's part of the point; that money isn't going to just magically vanish, its going to get paid to workers, fabricators and engineers as well as a whole slew of other private sector economic drivers.
"Not satisfied with moderate-speed trains, California says it wants half of all federal funds so it can build brand-new 220-mph rail lines. But it's unlikely other states will settle for the slower trains if California gets the faster ones. Building fast trains nationwide would cost at least $500 billion."
Right, unsurprisingly we have vilification of California for implied decadence, followed by the further implication that the other states will make unreasonable demands so that they can "keep up" capped off with a paternal and patronizing monetary flourish.
"Besides the high costs, these trains do little to relieve congestion. "Not a single high-speed track built to date has had any perceptible impact on the road traffic" in Europe, says Ari Vatanen, a European Parliament member. California predicts its 220-mph trains would take just 3.5% of cars off of roads. California highway traffic grows that much every two years."
I love it when guys like O'Toole try to borrow the authority of foreign officials; its as if they feel they can gain credibility by sounding cosmopolitan. Let me tell something about Monsieur Vatanen. For starters, his credentials as an MP are: he was a famous race car driver. His credentials as an analyst of traffic statistics vis a vis mass transit are: he's an MP...who used to be a race car driver. Did we mention he's currently a member of the French Union for a Popular Movement, which is the native analog of the Republican party? Are we surprised that a Cato writer is citing the man, incompletely and without reference? Also, exactly what is the source of O'Toole's traffic statistics in California? Can can we possibly get some verification of claims?
"Moderate-speed trains would do even less. Nor would such trains be good for the environment. Amtrak diesel trains are only a little more energy efficient than flying or driving, and pumping those trains up to 110 mph would reduce their efficiency. Because planes and cars are growing 2% more energy-efficient per year, rail would fare poorly by such measures over the next 15 to 20 years.
Moreover, high-speed rail consumes enormous amounts of energy and emits enormous volumes of greenhouse gases. These would cancel out any operational savings over cars and planes."
Except, once again, O'Toole follows the formula and winds up creating a false dilemma; fossil fuel rail or fossil fuel cars. As if electrifying the rail system just isn't an option because he choose not to discuss it. And before anyone gets started, yes, I know that the power has to come from somewhere; who says it has to be a coal fired plant? Or even a current-spec coal fired plant? Please.
Now, the next statement is interesting;
"Interstates paid for themselves out of gas taxes..."
It is interesting chiefly because it directly contradicts an earlier statement that I reserved until now, to contrast the two;
"In contrast with the interstate highway system, which paid for itself out of user fees..."
Now I am forced to conclude one of the following: O'Toole doesn't know what he's talking about, O'Toole is being deliberately misleading, or O'Toole simply neglected to say explicitly that a complex, heterogeneous combination of solutions are at times called for to address complex problems. For the sake of charity I will assume the latter of these.
And finally I want to address these two statements;
"Although every taxpayer would share the cost of these trains, high-speed rails are not about serving the common people. Instead, they are aimed at the elite."
-and-
"Rail requires huge tax subsidies and would regularly serve only a small elite. Which is the better symbol for the America President Obama wants to build?"
Now I can't speak for anyone else but when I lived in Bethesda, MD which itself is part of D.C.'s metro rail system I was hardly one of the "elite" (although O'Toole never deigns to define exactly what that means, so maybe I was!). I was a very junior sailor living in the barracks and learning my trade as an MLT. For just about a year and a half I used that transit system to go everywhere. More than that, I used the AmTrak hub at Union Station to go as far as NYC on several occasions and closer points regularly. Right now I'm one of the loudest (if not prominent or influential) voices for development of a similar system in Cincinnati, OH.
It utterly escapes me how a publicly available mass transit system, improving mobility for student and workers, could possibly be interpreted as being reserved for some mythical social "elite" in a country where private transportation has always been the hallmark of the upper-classes; from carriages to yachts to limousines to private jets, the elite have always been easily identified by such luxuries.
Friday, May 15, 2009
What is the Sound of One Mean Ending?
Alright. I give; if Dick wants to go on about how justified the previous administration was in violating our principles, then let us, as Slick Willy once said, "Saddle up and have an argument." Speaking purely for myself, I was willing to follow Obama's lead and just leave it be; acknowledge a shameful episode in our national history and move forward. The precedents set by the subsequent legal proceedings could be...strike that will be horrific. If the previous administration wants to play with fire though and since their supporters can't seem to let it be either, I say damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!
Referring to my last post on the topic, I think I may have put the cart before the horse; I'm leery of Congressional hearings but if we are going to do this, then lets start there. The purpose of said hearing must be, simply and exclusively, to establish exactly what the actions of the administration were. Purely investigative, nothing more. Once that has been determined we can move on to the next step of having DoJ build a case for prosecution of parties for violation of the Geneva convention. The case should then be put before the Hague to cut off any chance of political favor trading; and I can't wait to hear what the response will be to Cheney's weaselly little "the Conventions don't apply to these guys because they weren't wearing the right clothes!"
So they are non-combatants, then? How do you justify that, Mr. Former-Vice-President?
In the interest of expediting the whole thing, the small fry should be left out of it; don't waste our time on individual agents and soldiers, go to the command structure, starting at the top and then work down to the lowest command level. Let the individuals who were actually doing the grunt work go with a plea; testimony for a non-punitive conviction.
The worst fear of this process is that it will set in motion a precedent of using retributive prosecutions of outgoing political rivals and this is a perfectly legitimate argument. How can anyone honestly expect elected officials to make difficult decisions if they have to worry about being prosecuted for them later, when the political winds shift?
This is the wrong question and reflects a flaw that has been revealed in our system; whether that flaw was present at the beginning or developed over time is a matter for debate. In any event, the point is that the question should be, "Why are electing officials who aren't aware of what the legal bounds and obligations of their offices are?" I know nobody much likes lawyers but maybe we should be aware that they at least bloody well know the law governing their actions. I'm not trying to suggest that the lawyers should be the only ones running for office but shouldn't we have some sort of minimum demonstrable competency? It's worth mentioning that the Chinese have always had a system of examining and evaluating their officials professional competence and that it was mandated that higher office required a demonstration of greater competence for promotion.
Referring to my last post on the topic, I think I may have put the cart before the horse; I'm leery of Congressional hearings but if we are going to do this, then lets start there. The purpose of said hearing must be, simply and exclusively, to establish exactly what the actions of the administration were. Purely investigative, nothing more. Once that has been determined we can move on to the next step of having DoJ build a case for prosecution of parties for violation of the Geneva convention. The case should then be put before the Hague to cut off any chance of political favor trading; and I can't wait to hear what the response will be to Cheney's weaselly little "the Conventions don't apply to these guys because they weren't wearing the right clothes!"
So they are non-combatants, then? How do you justify that, Mr. Former-Vice-President?
In the interest of expediting the whole thing, the small fry should be left out of it; don't waste our time on individual agents and soldiers, go to the command structure, starting at the top and then work down to the lowest command level. Let the individuals who were actually doing the grunt work go with a plea; testimony for a non-punitive conviction.
The worst fear of this process is that it will set in motion a precedent of using retributive prosecutions of outgoing political rivals and this is a perfectly legitimate argument. How can anyone honestly expect elected officials to make difficult decisions if they have to worry about being prosecuted for them later, when the political winds shift?
This is the wrong question and reflects a flaw that has been revealed in our system; whether that flaw was present at the beginning or developed over time is a matter for debate. In any event, the point is that the question should be, "Why are electing officials who aren't aware of what the legal bounds and obligations of their offices are?" I know nobody much likes lawyers but maybe we should be aware that they at least bloody well know the law governing their actions. I'm not trying to suggest that the lawyers should be the only ones running for office but shouldn't we have some sort of minimum demonstrable competency? It's worth mentioning that the Chinese have always had a system of examining and evaluating their officials professional competence and that it was mandated that higher office required a demonstration of greater competence for promotion.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Mud Wrestling
Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
As someone guilty on all three counts, I have to wonder aloud what the Great Lady might have made of the likes of El Rushbo and his current tirade against the honest criticism of Colin Powell.
Is this what it comes down to? Honorable and loyal servants of the public trust, acting and speaking in good faith being assaulted by a pompous, arrogant, self-righteous, bellicose wind bag of mediocre talent and no visible scruple? I am one of the first to defend the right of free speech but I cannot reconcile the Fat Man's vitriolic effluvia. Powell voiced an honest opinion in the interest of improving the state of the RNC, made a mild, professional criticism about the state of the debate coming from the right and Limbaugh, who is in no way whatsoever an official of the party, a veteran public servant in either military or civil capacity or even a credentialed journalist launches a personal assault on the man.
Words fail me.
As someone guilty on all three counts, I have to wonder aloud what the Great Lady might have made of the likes of El Rushbo and his current tirade against the honest criticism of Colin Powell.
Is this what it comes down to? Honorable and loyal servants of the public trust, acting and speaking in good faith being assaulted by a pompous, arrogant, self-righteous, bellicose wind bag of mediocre talent and no visible scruple? I am one of the first to defend the right of free speech but I cannot reconcile the Fat Man's vitriolic effluvia. Powell voiced an honest opinion in the interest of improving the state of the RNC, made a mild, professional criticism about the state of the debate coming from the right and Limbaugh, who is in no way whatsoever an official of the party, a veteran public servant in either military or civil capacity or even a credentialed journalist launches a personal assault on the man.
Words fail me.
Teh Winkest Links
So apparently I need to cross-link a few things from over on Pete's forum:
Thread about financial crisis.
Barbarians at the Gate
So the Talibani chieftains decided they weren't satisfied with just the valley, neh?
What a bleeding surprise. Asif Ali Zardari apparently never got the memo about negotiating from a position of strength. Far be it from me to tell the man how to do his job but I can't help feeling like holing up in defensive positions with underfunded, under trained forces while people intent on your execution roam the countryside at will isn't the great recipe for success. I can't argue that he doesn't want to look like an American lap-dog, but Zardari seriously needs to get off his ass and help us with these people before they completely overrun his supporters. He needs to understand where the real threat lies, stop worrying about India and demonstrate to his voters that A: the extremists are the worst enemy they could ask for and that B: he's got the chops to put an end to them and secure the peace.
Easy to say from my perch here in CONUS but my frustration is mounting. We cannot allow the nutters to get their hands on the PNA and I fully expect to see a massive deployment into Pakistan if they try it. How many weak foreign powers can we prop up, though? As usual, the line about prevention and worth comes to mind.
What a bleeding surprise. Asif Ali Zardari apparently never got the memo about negotiating from a position of strength. Far be it from me to tell the man how to do his job but I can't help feeling like holing up in defensive positions with underfunded, under trained forces while people intent on your execution roam the countryside at will isn't the great recipe for success. I can't argue that he doesn't want to look like an American lap-dog, but Zardari seriously needs to get off his ass and help us with these people before they completely overrun his supporters. He needs to understand where the real threat lies, stop worrying about India and demonstrate to his voters that A: the extremists are the worst enemy they could ask for and that B: he's got the chops to put an end to them and secure the peace.
Easy to say from my perch here in CONUS but my frustration is mounting. We cannot allow the nutters to get their hands on the PNA and I fully expect to see a massive deployment into Pakistan if they try it. How many weak foreign powers can we prop up, though? As usual, the line about prevention and worth comes to mind.
Friday, May 1, 2009
UnReal Time
I'm sitting in a public place and they've got FNC running. Glenn Beck is on atm and being a bigger prat than usual. They had TWC on all day and then someone asked for the news. Glenn Beck is not news, but they won't change the fucking channel.
I am full of a measure of murder and rage I haven't experience recently.
I am full of a measure of murder and rage I haven't experience recently.
Has anyone else noticed that these people are going into hardcore hype-defensive mode? That they insist on talking about everything as if they were under attack from all sides? That they _constantly_ talk about how they "feel" about one supposed threat to "their America" after another?
Why don't they ever just cite the facts? Why can't they seem to examine issues from all sides?
Water way to go...
Okay, I think I have an answer to the brine disposal issue inherent to the desalinization option in handling the So-Cal water shortage.
In the first place, set the plants up as a State Public Utility, sell the water to the private company and rebate the profits back the tax payers, less expenses. Second, you can power the plants by setting up solar farms on the other side of the inland mountains, providing local jobs to the natives. Third, you pump the brine back out to sea using off-shore wind turbines, diluting it using seawater in increasing volume until you discharge it at the edge of the continental shelf.
I advise talking to the Dutch about engineering.
In the first place, set the plants up as a State Public Utility, sell the water to the private company and rebate the profits back the tax payers, less expenses. Second, you can power the plants by setting up solar farms on the other side of the inland mountains, providing local jobs to the natives. Third, you pump the brine back out to sea using off-shore wind turbines, diluting it using seawater in increasing volume until you discharge it at the edge of the continental shelf.
I advise talking to the Dutch about engineering.
Back to the Future!
Well here's a bit of amusing nonsense. I arrived at this particular truckstop on thursday at about 1600, and got up at about Friday. That's not my point though, my point is, when I got up and headed inside for breakfast. They had FNC on the tube; what do you suppose the wunderkinder were on about?
Joe Biden's very minor flub about travelling in closed-air public transport vehicles when your sick. It would seem that, at least according to these chuckleheads, that old Joe "could have" tanked the entire airline industry. Oh, and everything else.
Words fail. As I watch what the AM FNC lackeys are babbling about, I can't help but wonder exactly what they think they're accomplishing. In fact, if you look at the advertisements they run, you'd get the impression that civilization is in a state of imminent collapse.
The only question that I can think to ask is,"Exactly how did you come to these conclusions?" I know its unfair of me, but I have reached a point where I want to see people show their work, to borrow the favorite phrase of math teachers every where. In fact, I'd like to have them actually have a modrated discussion with the other team. I know that the President has poopooed the idea of reenacting the Fairness Doctrine...but frankly, when these people go off into weirdo-land, they really are the best possible advertising for it.
Joe Biden's very minor flub about travelling in closed-air public transport vehicles when your sick. It would seem that, at least according to these chuckleheads, that old Joe "could have" tanked the entire airline industry. Oh, and everything else.
Words fail. As I watch what the AM FNC lackeys are babbling about, I can't help but wonder exactly what they think they're accomplishing. In fact, if you look at the advertisements they run, you'd get the impression that civilization is in a state of imminent collapse.
The only question that I can think to ask is,"Exactly how did you come to these conclusions?" I know its unfair of me, but I have reached a point where I want to see people show their work, to borrow the favorite phrase of math teachers every where. In fact, I'd like to have them actually have a modrated discussion with the other team. I know that the President has poopooed the idea of reenacting the Fairness Doctrine...but frankly, when these people go off into weirdo-land, they really are the best possible advertising for it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)