The truth is, the death of Alistaire Cooke has improved my life. I'm a chronic insomniac, which manifests itself in a tendency to listen to BBC World Service in the middle of the night. When Cooke retired a few weeks ago, those broadcasts lost one of their best features. But over the last couple of days they've been digging deep into the Letter From America archives and it's been a real treat.
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 31, 04 | 3:21 pm
---------------------
COMMENTS
--------------------
You are not evil. You are just drawn that way.
Posted by: The Bellman on Apr 01, 04 | 1:31 am
---------------------
Well, tonight I'm listening to the rebroadcast of Air America on the internet, so I'm nothing but creamy liberal goodness. Unfortunately, I'm not liking it very much.
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Apr 01, 04 | 2:21 am
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Laughing gas
Econoblogger MaxSpeak makes a good point about gas prices: Gas is cheap!
That's something to keep in mind while our 'liberal' candidate rushes to assure the rich and powerful that he's not going to rock the boat.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 31, 04 | 8:47 am
--------------------
COMMENTS
--------------------
In a more general sense, power is cheap. Current electricity prices are well below the historical average and near the lows seen in the early 1970's.
In fact, US energy use per dollar of GDP has been cut by 46% since 1970. So, we produce 46% more output (good and services) per dollar spent on energy than 35 years ago.
More fun facts: The US was self sufficient in energy production until the 1950's. In 2002, net imported energy accounted for 26 percent of all energy consumed.
67% of US petroleum consumption is used by the transportation sector (13 million barrels a day in 2002). Electricity generation consumes less than 1 million barrels per day.
US coal production has doubled since 1960, now exceeding 1 billion short tons annually. 92% of domestic coal prodution is now used for generating electricity.
Here's a pretty graph (I hope)
And a pdf full of pretty graphs
Of course, US carbon dioxide emissions have also increased to an all-time high of nearly 6 billion metric tons of gas in 2001. But if you're going to bake a cake, you have to break a few eggs.
Posted by: Joe6pack on Mar 31, 04 | 12:33 pm
--------------------
Well at least some of you Americans realize how good you have it. Try $3.50/gal for self-serve unleaded! The well-behaved Japanese just shut up and pay. (Of course they also don't have Senate Democrats screwing up energy policy.) Petrol prices in the UK are even higher, right?
Posted by: Zymurgist on Mar 31, 04 | 11:11 pm
Fun facts: in 1960, gas was 31 cents a gallon (regular, leaded), but in today's dollars, that would be $1.95. In 1980, it was $1.25 (unleaded, regular), or $2.82 in $2004. 1990, $1.16, or $1.65 today. The latest average is $1.72. --MaxSpeak
That's something to keep in mind while our 'liberal' candidate rushes to assure the rich and powerful that he's not going to rock the boat.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 31, 04 | 8:47 am
--------------------
COMMENTS
--------------------
In a more general sense, power is cheap. Current electricity prices are well below the historical average and near the lows seen in the early 1970's.
In fact, US energy use per dollar of GDP has been cut by 46% since 1970. So, we produce 46% more output (good and services) per dollar spent on energy than 35 years ago.
More fun facts: The US was self sufficient in energy production until the 1950's. In 2002, net imported energy accounted for 26 percent of all energy consumed.
67% of US petroleum consumption is used by the transportation sector (13 million barrels a day in 2002). Electricity generation consumes less than 1 million barrels per day.
US coal production has doubled since 1960, now exceeding 1 billion short tons annually. 92% of domestic coal prodution is now used for generating electricity.
Here's a pretty graph (I hope)
And a pdf full of pretty graphs
Of course, US carbon dioxide emissions have also increased to an all-time high of nearly 6 billion metric tons of gas in 2001. But if you're going to bake a cake, you have to break a few eggs.
Posted by: Joe6pack on Mar 31, 04 | 12:33 pm
--------------------
Well at least some of you Americans realize how good you have it. Try $3.50/gal for self-serve unleaded! The well-behaved Japanese just shut up and pay. (Of course they also don't have Senate Democrats screwing up energy policy.) Petrol prices in the UK are even higher, right?
Posted by: Zymurgist on Mar 31, 04 | 11:11 pm
Thanks for calling it like it is
I came across this quote from Judge Richard Posner while looking into the Deliberation Day brouhaha:
As gratified as I am that a hard headed realist like Posner is willing to admit that there's such a thing as aruling governing class, maybe there's a little more to the story than ambition, determination, and charisma.
Geez.
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 31, 04 | 3:06 am
---------------------
COMMENTS
---------------------
Posner's statement can be applied as-is to things such as local school board elections. If he had said 'ambitious, determined, charasmatic, and rich,' as you would have preferred I suppose, it would only apply to the state and national levels.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 31, 04 | 8:25 am
---------------------
I'm a big fan of local politics. I even go to city council meetings from time to time. Believe it or not, I most often agree with Republicans when they argue in favor of local control.
Further, I think that a lot of the real power in the U.S. is held by professional bureaucrats. 'Ambitious, determined, and charismatic' describes Richard Clarke pretty well.
Still, it's naive to talk about class and not talk about wealth, race, and gender. Posner only leaves room for a defense by writing 'governing' instead of 'ruling.'
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 31, 04 | 1:15 pm
Modern democracy, for reasons of efficiency and feasibility, is representative democracy, which involves a division between rulers and ruled. The rulers are officials who are drawn from - to be realistic - a governing class consisting of ambitious, determined, and charismatic seekers of power, and the role of the citizenry is to vote candidates for officialdom in and out of office on the basis of their perceived leadership qualities and policy preferences. [link]
As gratified as I am that a hard headed realist like Posner is willing to admit that there's such a thing as a
Geez.
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 31, 04 | 3:06 am
---------------------
COMMENTS
---------------------
Posner's statement can be applied as-is to things such as local school board elections. If he had said 'ambitious, determined, charasmatic, and rich,' as you would have preferred I suppose, it would only apply to the state and national levels.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 31, 04 | 8:25 am
---------------------
I'm a big fan of local politics. I even go to city council meetings from time to time. Believe it or not, I most often agree with Republicans when they argue in favor of local control.
Further, I think that a lot of the real power in the U.S. is held by professional bureaucrats. 'Ambitious, determined, and charismatic' describes Richard Clarke pretty well.
Still, it's naive to talk about class and not talk about wealth, race, and gender. Posner only leaves room for a defense by writing 'governing' instead of 'ruling.'
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 31, 04 | 1:15 pm
Even political hay needs better fertilizer than this
While surfing blogs looking for reactions to the Rice Capades I came across this:
Positive publicity? Maybe on Fox News. And I don't see how anybody could mistake the last week of Bush administration stumbling for a ronds de jambe a terre.
That said, I think there's a valid point here.
On Nightline tonight, a Democratic Party operative was trying to argue that Rice would have a tough time. His argument boiled down to something like, "You can't spin when you're under oath." Clearly, this guy missed the performances Rumsfeld and Armitage put on last week.
Fact is, Rice is an able spokesperson and her testimony is likely to help Bush.
At worst, she'll be forced to admit what everybody already knows. The Bush Administration wasn't focused on the threat of terrorism before 9-11.
It's not clear what difference it would have made if they had been. Even if the Bush inner circle had been as worried about terrorism as Clinton's inner circle apparently was, they would have faced a recalcitrant bureaucracy that, largely, didn't share their view.
What's more, if Bush had tried to take the political steps necessary to really fight terrorism on the domestic front there's every reason to expect that he would have faced stiff resistance from the Democrats.
I'm no fan of the Patriot Act taken as a whole, but I think it should be admitted that some of the provisions - especially those having to do with the sharing of information between law enforcement agencies - were necessary reforms. A Bush administration that was serious about fighting terrorism from Day 1 would have needed, as a first step, to enact those reforms.
Could they have? I'm not at all sure. Just as Republican politicking made it all but impossible for Clinton to take military action against al Qaeda, I think it's likely that Democratic politicking would have made it extremely difficult for Bush to do anything that could be spun as restricting civil liberties.
Tying this all together, I guess the point is that as entertaining as the Rice Capades have been and promise to be, there's not much to see here. About all we can hope is that the Bush campaign will be too embarrassed to call Kerry a flip flopper for a few weeks.
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 31, 04 | 12:57 am
Now, I can envision a lot of Democrats going "Gotcha!" and doing the Chicken Dance in glee. But there's just one thing I'd caution anyone who sees this as victory for the Democrats...
Bush doesn't play by your rules. And for all your thinking of him as a simplisme' country bumpkin, unlearned in the diplomatic double-speak so in vogue - he broke the credibility of the UN. His decisions launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
He's many things - but he's not stupid. I think he knew exactly what he was doing here and he's gotten a heck of a lot of POSITIVE publicity, and it's gonna get messy in that conference room. [milblog]
Positive publicity? Maybe on Fox News. And I don't see how anybody could mistake the last week of Bush administration stumbling for a ronds de jambe a terre.
That said, I think there's a valid point here.
On Nightline tonight, a Democratic Party operative was trying to argue that Rice would have a tough time. His argument boiled down to something like, "You can't spin when you're under oath." Clearly, this guy missed the performances Rumsfeld and Armitage put on last week.
Fact is, Rice is an able spokesperson and her testimony is likely to help Bush.
At worst, she'll be forced to admit what everybody already knows. The Bush Administration wasn't focused on the threat of terrorism before 9-11.
It's not clear what difference it would have made if they had been. Even if the Bush inner circle had been as worried about terrorism as Clinton's inner circle apparently was, they would have faced a recalcitrant bureaucracy that, largely, didn't share their view.
What's more, if Bush had tried to take the political steps necessary to really fight terrorism on the domestic front there's every reason to expect that he would have faced stiff resistance from the Democrats.
I'm no fan of the Patriot Act taken as a whole, but I think it should be admitted that some of the provisions - especially those having to do with the sharing of information between law enforcement agencies - were necessary reforms. A Bush administration that was serious about fighting terrorism from Day 1 would have needed, as a first step, to enact those reforms.
Could they have? I'm not at all sure. Just as Republican politicking made it all but impossible for Clinton to take military action against al Qaeda, I think it's likely that Democratic politicking would have made it extremely difficult for Bush to do anything that could be spun as restricting civil liberties.
Tying this all together, I guess the point is that as entertaining as the Rice Capades have been and promise to be, there's not much to see here. About all we can hope is that the Bush campaign will be too embarrassed to call Kerry a flip flopper for a few weeks.
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 31, 04 | 12:57 am
Without precedent
It's no secret that I enjoy dissecting arguments. So you might think that I'd want to take a close look at the reasoning behind the Bush Administration's claim that allowing Condi Rice to testify before the 9-11 commission would set a dangerous precedent unless they say that it doesn't.
But you know what? I'm not going to. As far as I'm concerned, the fewer precedents this Administration sets the better.
I haven't always been this laid back. Just a few years ago, I thought the worst thing about the Supreme Court's inauguration gift was this paragraph:
It seemed to me that the Court had decided the case wrongly. I still believe that. So why should I object to their thoughtful inclusion of a paragraph expressly allowing future cases to be decided correctly?
When President Bush included dozens of full colored glossy photographs of himself in his latest budget proposal, and later used those same images in campaign advertisements, I complained. It wasn't that I thought the budget proposal was likely to sway any swing voters. No, I was worried that a bad precedent had been set.
The same goes for the Administration's practice of ignoring inconvenient science. I never expected Bush to do a good job on the environment, to allow stem cell research, or let the kids know about condoms. What really bothered me was the precedent of manipulating government sponsored science for political gain.
And, of course, there's the invasion of Iraq. The arguments were bad and the dangers were misunderestimated, but what really upset me was that I didn't want my country to be the sort of nation that went around picking fights. Invading a country that hadn't attacked us, hadn't attacked anyone else, and wasn't even a threat to any other nation was, it seemed to me, a terrible precedent to set.
Which brings me back to the latest hullabaloo. Sure, if you look closely at the reasoning it seems a bit strained, but that's just the way it goes. The important thing is that the Bush White House has taught the rest of us something that'll be really useful.
If you don't want to set a precedent, all you have to do is say so.
There's just one thing that worries me. The first President Bush only served a single term. What if that didn't set a precedent?
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 30, 04 | 7:27 pm
But you know what? I'm not going to. As far as I'm concerned, the fewer precedents this Administration sets the better.
I haven't always been this laid back. Just a few years ago, I thought the worst thing about the Supreme Court's inauguration gift was this paragraph:
The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities. [link]
It seemed to me that the Court had decided the case wrongly. I still believe that. So why should I object to their thoughtful inclusion of a paragraph expressly allowing future cases to be decided correctly?
When President Bush included dozens of full colored glossy photographs of himself in his latest budget proposal, and later used those same images in campaign advertisements, I complained. It wasn't that I thought the budget proposal was likely to sway any swing voters. No, I was worried that a bad precedent had been set.
The same goes for the Administration's practice of ignoring inconvenient science. I never expected Bush to do a good job on the environment, to allow stem cell research, or let the kids know about condoms. What really bothered me was the precedent of manipulating government sponsored science for political gain.
And, of course, there's the invasion of Iraq. The arguments were bad and the dangers were misunderestimated, but what really upset me was that I didn't want my country to be the sort of nation that went around picking fights. Invading a country that hadn't attacked us, hadn't attacked anyone else, and wasn't even a threat to any other nation was, it seemed to me, a terrible precedent to set.
Which brings me back to the latest hullabaloo. Sure, if you look closely at the reasoning it seems a bit strained, but that's just the way it goes. The important thing is that the Bush White House has taught the rest of us something that'll be really useful.
If you don't want to set a precedent, all you have to do is say so.
There's just one thing that worries me. The first President Bush only served a single term. What if that didn't set a precedent?
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 30, 04 | 7:27 pm
'Unprecedented' is not a verb
You can't 'unprecedent' something.
So, what does that even mean, exactly? That this does not weaken the (slightly silly) line they had drawn in the sand, and that this won't make it easier to pressure White House advisers into sworn testification?
But isn't it obvious what it really means? That it won't set a precedent except for the next case where everybody agrees they are not setting a precedent?
So that grave issue of constitutional separation of powers can apparently be resolved with something like,
'Today is opposite day. But we won't have any more of these!'
Ouch, my head.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 30, 04 | 5:21 pm
---------------------
COMMENTS
---------------------
I wasn't exactly aware what the 9/11 commission did all day (and thanks to the internet that problem has been solved). Wait. No. I'm still a little confused. Why is the "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" truncated to "The 9-11 Commission"? Style?
Although I can see how tNCoTAUtUS is missing the sizzle of such number combos as Front242 or ZeroBoy, I have to say... I thought it was going to just be a group of folks investigating the terrorist attacks on/in/around Sept. 11. Not so. It's that AND a whole lot more! There is a terror-polloza list of road gigs and on May 18 and 19th "The 9-11 Plot" will be playin' NYC!
Actually, I'd never given this site a once over... and I'm glad I did. I'd suggest hitting the staff statements if you're the type that likes to cut to the juice.
I heard Bush pushing the word "unique" when addressing this unprecedentification. He said the administration agreed to this "unique" request because of the "unique" aspects of the 911 attacks. Wow, that's real nice... how about you, the President of the United States of America, try something a little "unique" and have a dialogue with the people you represent instead of cutting off your tail and running away?
I find the whole game very cowardly.
You hear that Bush and Cheney will *NOT* be under oath?
Unbelievable.
Posted by: monkey on Mar 31, 04 | 3:25 am
---------------------
Bush and Cheney are also going to do a joint appearance instead of chatting individually.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 31, 04 | 8:21 am
In a letter to the 9/11 commission, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales said the panel must agree in writing that Rice's appearance would not set a precedent for testimony by White House staff and that no additional public testimony will be requested from any White House official, including Rice. --CNN.
So, what does that even mean, exactly? That this does not weaken the (slightly silly) line they had drawn in the sand, and that this won't make it easier to pressure White House advisers into sworn testification?
But isn't it obvious what it really means? That it won't set a precedent except for the next case where everybody agrees they are not setting a precedent?
So that grave issue of constitutional separation of powers can apparently be resolved with something like,
'Today is opposite day. But we won't have any more of these!'
Ouch, my head.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 30, 04 | 5:21 pm
---------------------
COMMENTS
---------------------
I wasn't exactly aware what the 9/11 commission did all day (and thanks to the internet that problem has been solved). Wait. No. I'm still a little confused. Why is the "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" truncated to "The 9-11 Commission"? Style?
Although I can see how tNCoTAUtUS is missing the sizzle of such number combos as Front242 or ZeroBoy, I have to say... I thought it was going to just be a group of folks investigating the terrorist attacks on/in/around Sept. 11. Not so. It's that AND a whole lot more! There is a terror-polloza list of road gigs and on May 18 and 19th "The 9-11 Plot" will be playin' NYC!
Actually, I'd never given this site a once over... and I'm glad I did. I'd suggest hitting the staff statements if you're the type that likes to cut to the juice.
I heard Bush pushing the word "unique" when addressing this unprecedentification. He said the administration agreed to this "unique" request because of the "unique" aspects of the 911 attacks. Wow, that's real nice... how about you, the President of the United States of America, try something a little "unique" and have a dialogue with the people you represent instead of cutting off your tail and running away?
I find the whole game very cowardly.
You hear that Bush and Cheney will *NOT* be under oath?
Unbelievable.
Posted by: monkey on Mar 31, 04 | 3:25 am
---------------------
Bush and Cheney are also going to do a joint appearance instead of chatting individually.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 31, 04 | 8:21 am
Springing From The Brow of Zeus, Fully Formed
Welcome to The Bellman, a barely-moderated, daily journal of politics, culture, and science. With the intervention of Deus Ex Monkey, this site is running on pmachine.
The views expressed in each post are not necessarily those of the editor (the Bellman), except for those authored by him.
Original text on this site is covered by a Creative Commons license (see the sidebar). Excerpted text and images are the property of the original owners.
The liberty bell image you may see in the upper left is from Founding Fathers.
We hope you like what you see. Questions or concerns? Contact thebellman@simplebox.org.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 30, 04 | 2:27 am
--------------------
COMMENTS
--------------------
I started this post as an experiment, and I learned what I needed to know. This post has ceased all forward motion, whilst I seek out new internet communication opportunities.
Posted by: Joe6pack on Mar 31, 04 | 10:20 am
The views expressed in each post are not necessarily those of the editor (the Bellman), except for those authored by him.
Original text on this site is covered by a Creative Commons license (see the sidebar). Excerpted text and images are the property of the original owners.
The liberty bell image you may see in the upper left is from Founding Fathers.
We hope you like what you see. Questions or concerns? Contact thebellman@simplebox.org.
Posted by: The Bellman on Mar 30, 04 | 2:27 am
--------------------
COMMENTS
--------------------
I started this post as an experiment, and I learned what I needed to know. This post has ceased all forward motion, whilst I seek out new internet communication opportunities.
Posted by: Joe6pack on Mar 31, 04 | 10:20 am
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
