Friday, March 30, 2012
Fox Friday!
Boy oh boy, has Fox News changed lately. The right has become increasingly frustrated with its move to at least attempt to be more fair and balanced. Many are moving towards CNN where the likes of Erick Erickson and Ari Fleischer wax poetic on a daily basis.
But this recent column really takes the cake!
5 reasons ObamaCare is already good for you
Fox Fucking News...Whoda thunk it? Here's my favorite of her five points because it addresses some most unwelcome childish dishonesty that has inserted its shriveled penis into the lexicon.
4. The Congressional Budget Office recently cut health care reform’s cost estimates.
Conservatives have relied on apples-to-oranges accounting gimmicks to suggest the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently doubled the cost estimates for the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the CBO adjusted its estimates to say the Affordable Care Act will cost less than originally projected. Moreover, the CBO has said that repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $210 billion.
So much for being concerned about the deficit...as long as they WIN!!!
But this recent column really takes the cake!
5 reasons ObamaCare is already good for you
Fox Fucking News...Whoda thunk it? Here's my favorite of her five points because it addresses some most unwelcome childish dishonesty that has inserted its shriveled penis into the lexicon.
4. The Congressional Budget Office recently cut health care reform’s cost estimates.
Conservatives have relied on apples-to-oranges accounting gimmicks to suggest the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently doubled the cost estimates for the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the CBO adjusted its estimates to say the Affordable Care Act will cost less than originally projected. Moreover, the CBO has said that repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $210 billion.
So much for being concerned about the deficit...as long as they WIN!!!
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
OMG!
Did you hear the big news? Obamacare is DEAD! After facing some questions on par with the Spanish inquisition, solicitor Donald Verrilli completely blew it, it's all over, and let's get ready for our new president, Mitt Romney.
Well, at least that's what the "liberal" media said yesterday (even though the actual decision won't be handed down until June). Since when are they all in the tank for the opponents of the law? They keep saying that people are being forced to buy health care. That's not true at all. You don't have to buy it at all. If you don't, you pay a tax, which is very, very Constitutionally valid.
Even the actual liberal media is behaving irrationally (see: hysterical old ladies). They seemed to completely ignore the tough questions that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy asked of Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, who are challenging the law. For example, Roberts told Carvin that he was not addressing the government's point, "which is that they are not creating commerce in health care. It's already there, and we are all going to need some kind of health care; most of us will at some point."
And Roberts accepted the fact that the mandate was not an order but a tax. This is important to note because on Monday in response to questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, Verrilli noted that under the law, a person who chooses to pay the tax penalty rather than comply with the mandate will not be considered in violation of the law. So it’s a choice — not a unilateral command. If even one of the conservative justices agrees, he could vote to uphold the law on unexpected grounds. It's entirely possible that you would have four votes to uphold the law under the Commerce clause and two votes to uphold it under taxing power.
Kennedy said the government might be right that the interwoven markets of health insurance and health care are unique. "The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries," Kennedy said. "That's my concern in the case." I also thought it was interesting that Clement acknowledged here that a system of national health care is likely constitutional even though the individual mandate was not.
This brings us to what may happen if the mandate portion is struck down. Robert Reich has an interesting take on this.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions. When this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they’re willing to remove that requirement – but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes. If they did this the public will be behind them — as will the Supreme Court.
But how could this happen?
Americans don’t mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new health care law. There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits. But requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is different because private companies aren’t directly accountable to the public. They’re accountable to their owners and their purpose is to maximize profits. What if they monopolize the market and charge humongous premiums? (Some already seem to be doing this.)
All of this makes me wonder if this is the president's back up plan. Not only is he a constitutional scholar but he's a very smart and pragmatic guy. His opponents are being terribly naive if they are assuming that he fast tracked this case without having multiple contingency plans.
The other way to look at all of this is political. If parts of the law are struck down, that takes a galvanizing principle out of the campaign. In fact, if the law is upheld, the base is going to be very motivated to get out and vote for repeal (even though we all know that Romney isn't going to do that if he wins).
So, I guess I'm not really worried either way it turns out. It's too bad that some liberal folks are so worried that they have all but given up because I don't think they are really considering all of the possibilities here. And that's why I'm truly going to enjoy the "winning the argument/proved them wrong" victory dance that the right will do if the mandate is struck down.
Enjoy it while it lasts, folks!
Well, at least that's what the "liberal" media said yesterday (even though the actual decision won't be handed down until June). Since when are they all in the tank for the opponents of the law? They keep saying that people are being forced to buy health care. That's not true at all. You don't have to buy it at all. If you don't, you pay a tax, which is very, very Constitutionally valid.
Even the actual liberal media is behaving irrationally (see: hysterical old ladies). They seemed to completely ignore the tough questions that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy asked of Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, who are challenging the law. For example, Roberts told Carvin that he was not addressing the government's point, "which is that they are not creating commerce in health care. It's already there, and we are all going to need some kind of health care; most of us will at some point."
And Roberts accepted the fact that the mandate was not an order but a tax. This is important to note because on Monday in response to questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, Verrilli noted that under the law, a person who chooses to pay the tax penalty rather than comply with the mandate will not be considered in violation of the law. So it’s a choice — not a unilateral command. If even one of the conservative justices agrees, he could vote to uphold the law on unexpected grounds. It's entirely possible that you would have four votes to uphold the law under the Commerce clause and two votes to uphold it under taxing power.
Kennedy said the government might be right that the interwoven markets of health insurance and health care are unique. "The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries," Kennedy said. "That's my concern in the case." I also thought it was interesting that Clement acknowledged here that a system of national health care is likely constitutional even though the individual mandate was not.
This brings us to what may happen if the mandate portion is struck down. Robert Reich has an interesting take on this.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions. When this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they’re willing to remove that requirement – but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes. If they did this the public will be behind them — as will the Supreme Court.
But how could this happen?
Americans don’t mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new health care law. There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits. But requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is different because private companies aren’t directly accountable to the public. They’re accountable to their owners and their purpose is to maximize profits. What if they monopolize the market and charge humongous premiums? (Some already seem to be doing this.)
All of this makes me wonder if this is the president's back up plan. Not only is he a constitutional scholar but he's a very smart and pragmatic guy. His opponents are being terribly naive if they are assuming that he fast tracked this case without having multiple contingency plans.
The other way to look at all of this is political. If parts of the law are struck down, that takes a galvanizing principle out of the campaign. In fact, if the law is upheld, the base is going to be very motivated to get out and vote for repeal (even though we all know that Romney isn't going to do that if he wins).
So, I guess I'm not really worried either way it turns out. It's too bad that some liberal folks are so worried that they have all but given up because I don't think they are really considering all of the possibilities here. And that's why I'm truly going to enjoy the "winning the argument/proved them wrong" victory dance that the right will do if the mandate is struck down.
Enjoy it while it lasts, folks!
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
PPACA A GO GO
With the second day of oral arguments being heard in the Supreme Court regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I thought it would be timely to put up a post with my various thoughts on the issue.
First of all, today is the key day as they are discussing the issue of the mandate. I'm wondering the team that is arguing to uphold the law as is will look to this bill, enacted in 1798 by the 5th Congress and signed by founding father John Adams, as an example of how the government can more or less force people to get health care. An Act For The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen would never pass muster with the Republicans of today. Clearly they would label it as "government overreach" and "something our founding fathers would never do"...even though our founding fathers did just that!
The type of question that each justice asks is usually indicative of how they are going to vote. I think it's safe to say that Thomas and Alito will be voting to strike down the mandate. Scalia is likely to vote that way as well, although there is some early indication that he doesn't like to mess around with bills that Congress have already passed. With Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer likely to support the bill, that leaves Roberts and Kennedy and I think it's very possible that each will support to uphold the law as is given the other precedents that are being introduced.
PolitiFact has a page up that lists all the misconceptions about the health care law which have, no doubt, helped drive up its disapproval rating to around 47 percent. Here's the one that most people believe but is, in fact, a "Pants on Fire" lie.
Chris Christie slams health care reform as “a government takeover of health care”
While the reform gives the federal government a larger role in the health insurance industry, it doesn’t eliminate the private market. In fact, the reform is projected to increase the number of citizens with private health insurance. We know Christie doesn’t like the national health care reform, but he should know better than to call it a "government takeover." That’s been proven wrong over and over again, making his claim simply ridiculous.
Yeah, well, never touch a man's paranoia. It's a sacred thing.
The outcome of their ruling is going to be very interesting. How much will it affect the president's chances of re-election?
First of all, today is the key day as they are discussing the issue of the mandate. I'm wondering the team that is arguing to uphold the law as is will look to this bill, enacted in 1798 by the 5th Congress and signed by founding father John Adams, as an example of how the government can more or less force people to get health care. An Act For The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen would never pass muster with the Republicans of today. Clearly they would label it as "government overreach" and "something our founding fathers would never do"...even though our founding fathers did just that!
The type of question that each justice asks is usually indicative of how they are going to vote. I think it's safe to say that Thomas and Alito will be voting to strike down the mandate. Scalia is likely to vote that way as well, although there is some early indication that he doesn't like to mess around with bills that Congress have already passed. With Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer likely to support the bill, that leaves Roberts and Kennedy and I think it's very possible that each will support to uphold the law as is given the other precedents that are being introduced.
PolitiFact has a page up that lists all the misconceptions about the health care law which have, no doubt, helped drive up its disapproval rating to around 47 percent. Here's the one that most people believe but is, in fact, a "Pants on Fire" lie.
Chris Christie slams health care reform as “a government takeover of health care”
While the reform gives the federal government a larger role in the health insurance industry, it doesn’t eliminate the private market. In fact, the reform is projected to increase the number of citizens with private health insurance. We know Christie doesn’t like the national health care reform, but he should know better than to call it a "government takeover." That’s been proven wrong over and over again, making his claim simply ridiculous.
Yeah, well, never touch a man's paranoia. It's a sacred thing.
The outcome of their ruling is going to be very interesting. How much will it affect the president's chances of re-election?
Monday, March 26, 2012
Finally, Some Sense on Patent Nonsense
Today the Supreme Court threw out a lower court ruling that allowed human genes to be patented. They sent the case back to the lower court in light of their recent decision that laws of nature can't be patented.
Finally, a ray of light on the Intellectual Property front. The idea that human genes that were simply found could be patented is, so to speak, patent nonsense. The company that found the BRCA gene, which predisposes those who carry it to several types of cancer, had created an exorbitantly priced test. Their claim of a patent on the gene itself was used as a legal hammer to prevent others from researching the gene and diseases it caused. The gene is found in predominantly Eastern European Jewish descent.
The company, Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City, Utah, argued that they should be rewarded for years of research. But the reality is that it's not the science being rewarded, but the legal chicanery that pushes the bounds of common sense and tries to patent things that have existed in nature for thousands if not millions of years.
The discovery of this gene and its function hinged on genetic sequencing and analytical techniques that other scientists developed long ago. If Myriad have developed a new and innovative test for the gene, that would be patentable. But since Myriad used techniques others developed in their research, and had done nothing original, their lawyers decided to pull a fast one and patent the gene instead.
The argument that this will hurt scientific research and discourage development of future treatments is totally bogus. Myriad did the minimum possible here: they developed a test for a gene. They did not find out how the gene causes cancer, find a treatment or a cure. They just sat back to cash in on it. In fact, Myriad was the one standing in the way of scientific progress: the patent on the gene gave Myriad the ability to sue other researchers investigating the gene, preventing them from looking for a treatment or a cure.
Now that would be something worth patenting.
Finally, a ray of light on the Intellectual Property front. The idea that human genes that were simply found could be patented is, so to speak, patent nonsense. The company that found the BRCA gene, which predisposes those who carry it to several types of cancer, had created an exorbitantly priced test. Their claim of a patent on the gene itself was used as a legal hammer to prevent others from researching the gene and diseases it caused. The gene is found in predominantly Eastern European Jewish descent.
The company, Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City, Utah, argued that they should be rewarded for years of research. But the reality is that it's not the science being rewarded, but the legal chicanery that pushes the bounds of common sense and tries to patent things that have existed in nature for thousands if not millions of years.
The discovery of this gene and its function hinged on genetic sequencing and analytical techniques that other scientists developed long ago. If Myriad have developed a new and innovative test for the gene, that would be patentable. But since Myriad used techniques others developed in their research, and had done nothing original, their lawyers decided to pull a fast one and patent the gene instead.
The argument that this will hurt scientific research and discourage development of future treatments is totally bogus. Myriad did the minimum possible here: they developed a test for a gene. They did not find out how the gene causes cancer, find a treatment or a cure. They just sat back to cash in on it. In fact, Myriad was the one standing in the way of scientific progress: the patent on the gene gave Myriad the ability to sue other researchers investigating the gene, preventing them from looking for a treatment or a cure.
Now that would be something worth patenting.
Racist or Racial Profiler?
There's been a lot of talk about whether George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin as he walked down a Florida street with his bag of Skittles, is a racist. Zimmerman's lawyer says he's not. I'm willing to take Zimmerman at his word: if he says that some of his best friends are black, that he's raising money for an African American church, I'll believe it.
But that isn't really the issue. You don't have to be a racist to be a racial profiler. In 2009, 40% of male prisoners in the United States were black (whites were 33% and Hispanics 21%). In the 2010 census blacks made up 12.9% of the U.S. population. George Zimmerman has taken a 14-week citizen's police academy course. His father is a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate judge and his mother worked as a deputy clerk of courts.
Given the incarceration rates, someone like Zimmerman could easily come to the following conclusion: blacks are three times more like to commit crimes than whites. However, that's really not what the numbers say: all they say is that the percentage of blacks in prisons is three times higher than that of whites.
There could be any number of reasons why that is: Blacks are more likely to be jailed than whites. Blacks receive longer prison sentences than whites for the same or similar crimes (as evidenced by now-outlawed crack/powder cocaine sentencing guideline disparities). Blacks are more likely to be poor, and can't afford top lawyers and wind up going to jail for crimes that whites typically avoid conviction for or obtain non-prison plea deals. Judges are more lenient sentencing white criminals, and lighter-skinned blacks receive shorter sentences. Whites who steals millions of dollars in white-collar crimes often get off with no jail time or one-year stints in Club Fed, while blacks caught with a few dime bags can go to jail for the rest of their lives because of three-strikes laws. Many blacks live in poor areas dominated by drug gangs, where young black men are often forced to choose sides in gang turf wars on pain of death, which predisposes them to committing crimes in the first place. The whole gangsta rap/hip hop vibe romanticizes the image of the black man as a street tough. And so on.
Interestingly, the incarceration rates among women are different: white women constitute 46% of the prison population, black women 32% and Hispanics 16%.
Geraldo Rivera has, as always, brought much needed logic to the debate: he says that Trayvon Martin's hoodie got him killed. Because you know what kind of people wear hoodies...
Zimmerman hasn't been arrested because the local sheriff thinks that Florida's "stand your ground" law protects him. But one of the sponsors of that law, former Senator Durell Peaden, disagrees:
Given what I heard in that 911 call and what I've read about his history, it sounds like Zimmerman is an overzealous neighborhood vigilante and a wanna-be cop. He has a history of being short-tempered, getting into fights and has had a couple of brushes with the law. He was tired of punks breaking into houses on his watch and he was gonna be the hero.
Our laws are supposed to protect us from people who might do us harm, intentionally or unintentionally. We don't want loose cannons on a short fuse out there playing cops and robbers. Because, as Geraldo so sagely reminded us, it's not just black kids who walk down the street at night wearing hoodies and listening to hip hop blaring in their earbuds.
But that isn't really the issue. You don't have to be a racist to be a racial profiler. In 2009, 40% of male prisoners in the United States were black (whites were 33% and Hispanics 21%). In the 2010 census blacks made up 12.9% of the U.S. population. George Zimmerman has taken a 14-week citizen's police academy course. His father is a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate judge and his mother worked as a deputy clerk of courts.
Given the incarceration rates, someone like Zimmerman could easily come to the following conclusion: blacks are three times more like to commit crimes than whites. However, that's really not what the numbers say: all they say is that the percentage of blacks in prisons is three times higher than that of whites.
There could be any number of reasons why that is: Blacks are more likely to be jailed than whites. Blacks receive longer prison sentences than whites for the same or similar crimes (as evidenced by now-outlawed crack/powder cocaine sentencing guideline disparities). Blacks are more likely to be poor, and can't afford top lawyers and wind up going to jail for crimes that whites typically avoid conviction for or obtain non-prison plea deals. Judges are more lenient sentencing white criminals, and lighter-skinned blacks receive shorter sentences. Whites who steals millions of dollars in white-collar crimes often get off with no jail time or one-year stints in Club Fed, while blacks caught with a few dime bags can go to jail for the rest of their lives because of three-strikes laws. Many blacks live in poor areas dominated by drug gangs, where young black men are often forced to choose sides in gang turf wars on pain of death, which predisposes them to committing crimes in the first place. The whole gangsta rap/hip hop vibe romanticizes the image of the black man as a street tough. And so on.
Interestingly, the incarceration rates among women are different: white women constitute 46% of the prison population, black women 32% and Hispanics 16%.
Zimmerman hasn't been arrested because the local sheriff thinks that Florida's "stand your ground" law protects him. But one of the sponsors of that law, former Senator Durell Peaden, disagrees:
The 911 tapes strongly suggest Zimmerman overstepped his bounds, they say, when the Sanford neighborhood crime-watch captain said he was following Trayvon and appeared to ignore a police request to stay away.
“The guy lost his defense right then,” said Peaden. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”
Given what I heard in that 911 call and what I've read about his history, it sounds like Zimmerman is an overzealous neighborhood vigilante and a wanna-be cop. He has a history of being short-tempered, getting into fights and has had a couple of brushes with the law. He was tired of punks breaking into houses on his watch and he was gonna be the hero.
Our laws are supposed to protect us from people who might do us harm, intentionally or unintentionally. We don't want loose cannons on a short fuse out there playing cops and robbers. Because, as Geraldo so sagely reminded us, it's not just black kids who walk down the street at night wearing hoodies and listening to hip hop blaring in their earbuds.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Not Standing Your Ground
I've had several requests to comment on the Trayvon Martin case. Fortunately, Neil Boortz pretty much sums up how I feel.
Trayvon Martin’s family says that they don’t believe that their son would have been killed if it were not for the color of his skin. I believe they’re right.
The Grand Jury will convene on April 10th to consider this case. I feel it is likely that charges will be brought against Zimmerman, as they should be. He should not be able to use Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute as a defense. You are not “standing your ground” when you are pursuing someone.
And what about the charge of racism?
The more likely scenario here is one of pure prejudice. George Zimmerman saw a young black male in his neighborhood at night, and immediately pre-judged the situation, coming to the conclusion that Trayvon Martin was up to no good.
The simple fact that he was a black youth wearing a hoodie immediately put Zimmerman into perceptual bias mode and that was that. This doesn't even include the likely mental disability that Zimmerman has and his several dozen calls to 911 which ended in false alarms.
In addition, how is it that someone who was convicted of assault (then scrubbed from his record) was able to get a firearm?
Trayvon Martin’s family says that they don’t believe that their son would have been killed if it were not for the color of his skin. I believe they’re right.
The Grand Jury will convene on April 10th to consider this case. I feel it is likely that charges will be brought against Zimmerman, as they should be. He should not be able to use Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute as a defense. You are not “standing your ground” when you are pursuing someone.
And what about the charge of racism?
The more likely scenario here is one of pure prejudice. George Zimmerman saw a young black male in his neighborhood at night, and immediately pre-judged the situation, coming to the conclusion that Trayvon Martin was up to no good.
The simple fact that he was a black youth wearing a hoodie immediately put Zimmerman into perceptual bias mode and that was that. This doesn't even include the likely mental disability that Zimmerman has and his several dozen calls to 911 which ended in false alarms.
In addition, how is it that someone who was convicted of assault (then scrubbed from his record) was able to get a firearm?
Saturday, March 24, 2012
This Simple Method
I find Rush Limbaugh obnoxious, but I've been able to coexist comfortably with him for 20 years by using this simple method: I never listen to his program. The only time I hear him is when I'm at a stoplight next to a pickup truck. (Bill Maher in his wonderful new column, "Please stop apologizing.")
For all the bitching I've done over the years about Rush Limbaugh, I have to say that I really hope they don't drive him off the air. I like him right where is...loud and misogynistic!
For all the bitching I've done over the years about Rush Limbaugh, I have to say that I really hope they don't drive him off the air. I like him right where is...loud and misogynistic!
George Joins The Cult
In the Krugman piece linked below, we see the following excerpt.
For example, last year George Will declared that the Obama administration’s support for train travel had nothing to do with relieving congestion and reducing environmental impacts. No, he insisted, “the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.” Who knew that Dagny Taggart, the railroad executive heroine of “Atlas Shrugged,” was a Commie?
George, I used to have respect for you as at least being a thinking conservative. Now, you aren't even that. Ah, well, at least I have an explanation as to why the right don't like choo-choos.
For example, last year George Will declared that the Obama administration’s support for train travel had nothing to do with relieving congestion and reducing environmental impacts. No, he insisted, “the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.” Who knew that Dagny Taggart, the railroad executive heroine of “Atlas Shrugged,” was a Commie?
George, I used to have respect for you as at least being a thinking conservative. Now, you aren't even that. Ah, well, at least I have an explanation as to why the right don't like choo-choos.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Somehow, In Their World...
A recent article in the New York Times offers an excellent summation of how truly exciting the future will be in regards to energy in this country.
That's right. And it's simple fact that has driven the right in this country to paranoid fits about the president and the Democrats. How dare they not act like a bunch of granola eating tree huggers?
But no, say it ain't so! Somehow they must be plotting and restricting access to energy reserves, right?
Wrong.
Alright, well, what does the energy sector think?
So, why is the right continuing to insist that the president is trying to block energy output? Especially in light of this information?
Well, Paul Krugman has the answer.
Sadly, I have experienced this in comments with some folks who can't seem to understand this basic fact.
Why it is so difficult to understand the concept of a world market perplexes me.
It must (as is usually the case) the fact that the paranoia about Barack X has taken over. Somehow, in their world, this...
“Anybody who comes in with a driver’s license and a Social Security card, I’ll give him a chance,” said Rusty Allred, owner of Rusty’s Oilfield Service Company.
is not happening.
Wow.
As Jon Stewart says, "The Republican Party...rooting for America to fail since 2008."
Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota.
That's right. And it's simple fact that has driven the right in this country to paranoid fits about the president and the Democrats. How dare they not act like a bunch of granola eating tree huggers?
Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005.
But no, say it ain't so! Somehow they must be plotting and restricting access to energy reserves, right?
Wrong.
The domestic trends are unmistakable. Not only has the United States reduced oil imports from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries by more than 20 percent in the last three years, it has become a net exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for the first time since the Truman presidency.
The natural gas industry, which less than a decade ago feared running out of domestic gas, is suddenly dealing with a glut so vast that import facilities are applying for licenses to export gas to Europe and Asia.
National oil production, which declined steadily to 4.95 million barrels a day in 2008 from 9.6 million in 1970, has risen over the last four years to nearly 5.7 million barrels a day. The Energy Department projects that daily output could reach nearly seven million barrels by 2020. Some experts think it could eventually hit 10 million barrels — which would put the United States in the same league as Saudi Arabia.
“We’re having a revolution,” said G. Steven Farris, chief executive of Apache Corporation, one of the basin’s most active producers. “And we’re just scratching the surface.”
Today, more than 475 rigs — roughly a quarter of all rigs operating in the United States — are smashing through tight rocks across the Permian in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. Those areas are already producing nearly a million barrels a day, or 17 percent more than two years ago. By decade’s end, that daily total could easily double, oil executives say, roughly equaling the total output of Nigeria.
So, why is the right continuing to insist that the president is trying to block energy output? Especially in light of this information?
Mr. Obama’s current policy has alarmed many environmental advocates who say he has failed to adequately address the environmental threats of expanded drilling and the use of fossil fuels.
Well, Paul Krugman has the answer.
This claim isn’t just nuts; it’s a sort of craziness triple play — a lie wrapped in an absurdity swaddled in paranoia. It’s the sort of thing you used to hear only from people who also believed that fluoridated water was a Communist plot.
Sadly, I have experienced this in comments with some folks who can't seem to understand this basic fact.
Simple economics suggests that if the nation is producing more energy, prices should be falling. But crude oil — and gasoline and diesel made from it — are global commodities whose prices are affected by factors around the world. Supply disruptions in Africa, the political standoff with Iran and rising demand from a recovering world economy all are contributing to the current spike in global oil prices, offsetting the impact of the increased domestic supply.
Why it is so difficult to understand the concept of a world market perplexes me.
It must (as is usually the case) the fact that the paranoia about Barack X has taken over. Somehow, in their world, this...
The newfound wealth is spreading beyond the fields. In nearby towns, petroleum companies are buying so many pickup trucks that dealers are leasing parking lots the size of city blocks to stock their inventory.
Housing is in such short supply that drillers are importing contractors from Houston and hotels are leased out before they are even built.
Two new office buildings are going up in Midland, a city of just over 110,000 people, the first in 30 years, while the total value of downtown real estate has jumped 50 percent since 2008. With virtually no unemployment, restaurants cannot find enough servers. Local truck drivers are making six-figure salaries.
“Anybody who comes in with a driver’s license and a Social Security card, I’ll give him a chance,” said Rusty Allred, owner of Rusty’s Oilfield Service Company.
is not happening.
Wow.
As Jon Stewart says, "The Republican Party...rooting for America to fail since 2008."
Thursday, March 22, 2012
And Then There Were Six...
A while back, I predicted the election would come down to 13 states. I am now amended that to 6. Missouri and Iowa are going to go for the GOP no matter who the nominee is as the evangelical base in each state is very organized and motivated. And Iowa is doing comparatively better, economically speaking than the rest of the country so social issues are going to have bigger play there. And Missouri has really solidified its conservative base so it's going to be nearly impossible for the president or Senator McCaskill to win there.
But with Mitt's shenanigans in Michigan and the massive movement in Wisconsin to oust Governor Walker, the president can look forward to victories in those states. The heavy Latino population in New Mexico will also turn that state blue and New Hampshire, even with all its stalwart old guard conservatives, will also go for the president due to demographics (the youth and female vote). The latest polling out of Virginia also shows the president with very comfortable leads over all the GOP candidates. Again, we're talking demographics here.
So that leaves him with a likely 244 electoral votes. 26 to go and 6 states. Those states are Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. At this point, each of them could go either way but all he really needs is Pennsylvania (even John Kerry won that state) and just one more to put him over the top. So things are looking pretty good for the president at present.
Click here for my map: 2012 Presidential Election: Electoral Map:
But with Mitt's shenanigans in Michigan and the massive movement in Wisconsin to oust Governor Walker, the president can look forward to victories in those states. The heavy Latino population in New Mexico will also turn that state blue and New Hampshire, even with all its stalwart old guard conservatives, will also go for the president due to demographics (the youth and female vote). The latest polling out of Virginia also shows the president with very comfortable leads over all the GOP candidates. Again, we're talking demographics here.
So that leaves him with a likely 244 electoral votes. 26 to go and 6 states. Those states are Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. At this point, each of them could go either way but all he really needs is Pennsylvania (even John Kerry won that state) and just one more to put him over the top. So things are looking pretty good for the president at present.
Click here for my map: 2012 Presidential Election: Electoral Map:
The Sketch Heard 'Round The World
Eric Fehrnstrom, Senior Romney adviser, obviously had no idea the fury he was about to unleash when he made this comment.
In so many ways, this is Mitt Romney. As the likely nominee of the conservative party of this country, he's really not a conservative. He just plays one on TV. When the fall campaign starts, he's going to start to try to appeal to the independents of the electorate. But will he be able to do so after all the "Barack X" language that has been coming out of his mouth for the last several months?
As the recent Purple Poll shows, the president is doing very well with independents again so Mittens really has his work cut out for him. Having to spend the next two months moving farther and farther to the right will certainly not help. Check out his unfavorables on page 3. Wow!
In so many ways, this is Mitt Romney. As the likely nominee of the conservative party of this country, he's really not a conservative. He just plays one on TV. When the fall campaign starts, he's going to start to try to appeal to the independents of the electorate. But will he be able to do so after all the "Barack X" language that has been coming out of his mouth for the last several months?
As the recent Purple Poll shows, the president is doing very well with independents again so Mittens really has his work cut out for him. Having to spend the next two months moving farther and farther to the right will certainly not help. Check out his unfavorables on page 3. Wow!
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Getting in Your Facebook
A lot of people complain about how much government is getting involved in our personal lives, how intrusive it has become, yada yada yada. But there's another force that's even more intrusive, who knows far more about you than the government and is in a position to use information that should be completely private against you.
Your employer.
Last month there was a big noise when the Obama administration announced its plans for contraception coverage. It took them two tries to get it right, but in the end most quasi-religious organizations will be able to opt out of covering contraception and have the insurance company do it instead. This still presents a problem with organizations that self-insure, but it points out the real issue.
Our employers has no business knowing anything about our personal lives. In particular, they have no right to know our medical history, unless we're claiming sick time or maternity leave, we've been injured on the job, or medical problems are affecting our job performance. Some jobs, like airline pilots and football players, obviously require closer scrutiny of the employee's medical condition. But with the vast majority of us, our medical histories should be between us and our doctors. Our employers have no business sticking their noses into our private business.
Yet employers more and more seem to think that they own us. For years employers have been pushing for invasive drug-testing beyond jobs like police, pilots, bus drivers, etc., and into office jobs where it really doesn't matter. They've been on employees' cases for quitting smoking, losing weight, getting more exercise, etc., mostly in service to cutting their health care costs.
Now some employers have begun forcing potential employees to give their Facebook passwords so they can peep into your private profile. This is a clear invasion of privacy, and it's also against the policies of Facebook and most every other online service: you're never supposed to give out your password.
What people say on Facebook doesn't necessarily represent the reality of their lives. And relying on Facebook for any kind of real information is an extremely dubious: if you've got something to hide you can just make a separate Facebook account that only your "in" friend know about. Even worse, anyone can make a Facebook account in your name and make it appear that it's yours.
One form of cyber-bullying involves creating fake Facebook identities for the victims, then making posts that get the victim into trouble, such as terroristic threats. This problem isn't particularly new, it's been woven into the plots of shows like CSI: New York for years now.
Everyone across the political spectrum claims to be for freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The real question is how to proceed when the rights and freedoms of different groups and individuals collide: for example, those of employers and employees.
Your employer.
Last month there was a big noise when the Obama administration announced its plans for contraception coverage. It took them two tries to get it right, but in the end most quasi-religious organizations will be able to opt out of covering contraception and have the insurance company do it instead. This still presents a problem with organizations that self-insure, but it points out the real issue.
Our employers has no business knowing anything about our personal lives. In particular, they have no right to know our medical history, unless we're claiming sick time or maternity leave, we've been injured on the job, or medical problems are affecting our job performance. Some jobs, like airline pilots and football players, obviously require closer scrutiny of the employee's medical condition. But with the vast majority of us, our medical histories should be between us and our doctors. Our employers have no business sticking their noses into our private business.
Yet employers more and more seem to think that they own us. For years employers have been pushing for invasive drug-testing beyond jobs like police, pilots, bus drivers, etc., and into office jobs where it really doesn't matter. They've been on employees' cases for quitting smoking, losing weight, getting more exercise, etc., mostly in service to cutting their health care costs.
Now some employers have begun forcing potential employees to give their Facebook passwords so they can peep into your private profile. This is a clear invasion of privacy, and it's also against the policies of Facebook and most every other online service: you're never supposed to give out your password.
What people say on Facebook doesn't necessarily represent the reality of their lives. And relying on Facebook for any kind of real information is an extremely dubious: if you've got something to hide you can just make a separate Facebook account that only your "in" friend know about. Even worse, anyone can make a Facebook account in your name and make it appear that it's yours.
One form of cyber-bullying involves creating fake Facebook identities for the victims, then making posts that get the victim into trouble, such as terroristic threats. This problem isn't particularly new, it's been woven into the plots of shows like CSI: New York for years now.
Everyone across the political spectrum claims to be for freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The real question is how to proceed when the rights and freedoms of different groups and individuals collide: for example, those of employers and employees.
Employers have the right to control what you do on their time and with their equipment: you shouldn't be wasting time shopping on Amazon, posting on Facebook or looking at porn on your work computer.
But as long as you show up for work on time and do your job adequately, your employer has no right to know whether you use contraception, drink two vodka Martinis every night, or what your Facebook password is.
Still More Facts
In many ways, I'm very happy the energy issue is out front and center right now in public debate because we are starting to see more articles like this.
More US drilling didn't drop gas price
A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. Political rhetoric about the blame over gas prices and the power to change them — whether Republican claims now or Democrats' charges four years ago — is not supported by cold, hard figures.
Oh really? 36 years you say?
Seasonally adjusted U.S. oil production dropped steadily from February 1986 until three years ago. But starting in March 1986, inflation-adjusted gas prices fell below the $2-a-gallon mark and stayed there for most of the rest of the 1980s and 1990s. Production between 1986 and 1999 dropped by nearly one-third. If the drill-now theory were correct, prices should have soared. Instead they went down by nearly a dollar.
Uh...oops.
Further...
Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That's what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more. U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that's not what prices are now.
.But what about Keystone?
Supporters of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline say it would bring 25 million barrels of oil to the United States a month. That's the same increase in U.S. production that occurred between February and November last year. Monthly gas prices went up a dime a gallon in that time.
Facts, folks. These are facts. Read the entire piece as it contains many more hard statistics.
And what is it again that affects prices?
That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.
Why is that so difficult for people to understand? Oh yes, that's right...Barack X and his army of killer robots that are destroying free enterprise in this country.
Of course, the ultimate irony here is that I'm beginning to think that supporters of increased domestic drilling are under the impression that the United States government would own the oil. They wouldn't, of course, because that would be socialism, right? So, the companies that would own the oil would be able to sell it on the free market.
Where do you think they would go and sell it?
More US drilling didn't drop gas price
A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. Political rhetoric about the blame over gas prices and the power to change them — whether Republican claims now or Democrats' charges four years ago — is not supported by cold, hard figures.
Oh really? 36 years you say?
Seasonally adjusted U.S. oil production dropped steadily from February 1986 until three years ago. But starting in March 1986, inflation-adjusted gas prices fell below the $2-a-gallon mark and stayed there for most of the rest of the 1980s and 1990s. Production between 1986 and 1999 dropped by nearly one-third. If the drill-now theory were correct, prices should have soared. Instead they went down by nearly a dollar.
Uh...oops.
Further...
Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That's what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more. U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that's not what prices are now.
.But what about Keystone?
Supporters of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline say it would bring 25 million barrels of oil to the United States a month. That's the same increase in U.S. production that occurred between February and November last year. Monthly gas prices went up a dime a gallon in that time.
Facts, folks. These are facts. Read the entire piece as it contains many more hard statistics.
And what is it again that affects prices?
That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.
Why is that so difficult for people to understand? Oh yes, that's right...Barack X and his army of killer robots that are destroying free enterprise in this country.
Of course, the ultimate irony here is that I'm beginning to think that supporters of increased domestic drilling are under the impression that the United States government would own the oil. They wouldn't, of course, because that would be socialism, right? So, the companies that would own the oil would be able to sell it on the free market.
Where do you think they would go and sell it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)