Telling Stories

"Hit Head Here"

That's how I felt after reading through this entry at The Albany Project, a liberal/progressive blog about New York State politics with a focus on Upstate NY issues.

They had a Q-and-A session with Tracey Brooks, one of the Democratic congressional candidates for NY-21.

As a caveat, I must say a few things: first, I don't live in the district; second, I don't favor or support any Democratic candidate; third, what I've heard and read about Ms. Brooks is very positive and encouraging.

All that aside, I had to cringe when I read this - and I'm not blaming Ms. Brooks since it could have been TAP's staff who got it wrong.

For some background, here are a few of Brooks' stances that she expressed to me in my interview with her . . .

On gas prices . . .

- Investment money into alternative energy;
- Increase miles per gallon standards;
- Higher CAFE standards;
- End unnecessary price gouging . . .
- Invest more in renewable energy businesses

Emphasis added.  Higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards are based in part on miles-per-gallon.  So, listing it twice is redundant unless you clarify - if that is indeed the intent - that you want higher mpgs for all vehicles, not just those subject to CAFE standards or that you believe that CAFE credits should be eliminated.  Look here for more info on CAFE standards.  Since she didn't explicitly talk on this issue, I can't tell what she wants to do.

And that is never a good thing for a politician.

Then there is the "investment money into alternative energy/invest more in renewable energy businesses."  Isn't the former a subset of the latter?

But the one that really annoyed me was "end unnecessary price gouging."

Can anybody tell me if there is any form of necessary price gouging?  I didn't think so.  Besides, there is no proof anywhere that price gouging is taking place in the oil and gasoline markets.  Are the oil companies raking in huge profits?  Yes.  Are these profits the result of sky-high oil prices?  Yes.  Is there any evidence that the oil companies are manipulating the global oil market? No.  Are prices being manipulated at the local level?  That's unclear.  But, at worse, we're talking about a couple of pennies either way.

I'm disappointed because when a candidate lays out her platform, the last thing she needs in an obvious "ooops" moment a la Jeannie Pirro running for the U.S. Senate.

Laying out issues in this manner only leaves the perception that Ms. Brooks really lacks in-depth knowledge of these issues.

And that's never a good thing for a politician.

I Guess McCain Must Change His Tune Now

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution on July 7:

McCain and his top foreign policy advisers, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman, have stressed the military approach to Iran and condemned attempts at dialogue advocated by Obama.

From the New York Times on July 15, 2008:

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy – diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

From Reuters wire services today:

With just six months left in office, the Bush administration has done an about-face in joining talks with Tehran over its nuclear program, a move analysts say is driven partly by a desire to avoid war with Iran.

When your President's administration is starting to pursue an approach closer to your opponent's, you know you just can't buy a break!!

Further Proof That Bad Ideas Never Get in the Way of Politics

After a well-deserved summer break (because if I'm the one taking the break it's always well-deserved) I'm back!

President George W. Bush planned to lift a ban on oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf on Monday as part of an effort to ease record high oil prices, the White House said.

"States are going to be able to make decisions for themselves as to whether or not they want to do more offshore oil exploration off their shores, and how far out that would be, and what the revenue sharing would be when it comes to that," Perino said.

I've written before why this is a bad idea:

[a] 2007 Department of Energy study found that access to coastal energy deposits would not add to domestic crude oil and natural gas production before 2030 and that the impact on prices would be “insignificant.”

We have to wonder whether this is the best possible expenditure of time and effort.  Do we really want to risk the environmental harm associated with offshore drilling for relief that won't come for more than two decades down the road?  We can accomplish so many other things in terms of developing alternative energy sources between now and then.  We can do more to reduce our dependency on oil - foreign or domestic - if we raise the CAFE standards and we continue to provide tax incentives for hybrid and other similar vehicles.

I won't go into greater detail because it's pretty self-explanatory: this won't help us today, it won't help us any time soon, and it will help us very little when it finally happens.

Those are the facts.

The politics of it, however are pretty different though.  Right now, Arbusto looks like he's doing something "for the little guy."  In politics, the appearance of action is sometimes more important than actually accomplishing something, so he's got some brownie points coming to him.

How does this help McCain?  Well, if the Democrats in Congress don't lift the ban - and judging by the way they promptly rolled over on FISA, that's a big if - the Democrats are the bad guys who stand in the way of helping Americans reclaim their G-d-given right to cheap oil.

What should the Democrats do?

The Democrats should lift the ban.

There, I said it.

After all, two can play that political game.  If the Democrats agree to lift the ban, they should do so as a "triple dog dare ya" to Bush and the Republicans.  By doing that, the Democrats can first, point to the still-rising or not-dropping oil prices through the rest of the summer and fall and, second, can put on the defensive all the governors on those states where offshore drilling could take place, like Arnold in California, Crist in Florida, and Jindal in Louisiana.  Lets see what decision they make if it's up to them to open up their waters to offshore drilling.

It could be the gift-that-keeps-on-giving for the Democrats.  They get to prove their point, they get to hammer away at McCain and the Republicans on that issue, and they put a lot of Republican Governors on the spot.

Instructions for Giving Your Cat a Pill . . . or Not

Since I became a cat owner - or, more appropriately, owned by a cat - I am getting all the guidance and information I can get on cat topics.  This is pretty handy.

How to Give Your Cat a Pill (...or NOT!)

1) Pick cat up and cradle it in the crook of your left arm as if holding a baby. Position right forefinger and thumb on either side of cat's mouth and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As cat opens mouth pop pill into mouth. Allow cat to close mouth and swallow.

2) Retrieve pill from floor and cat from behind sofa.  Cradle cat in left arm and repeat process.

3) Retrieve cat from bedroom, and throw soggy pill away.

4) Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm holding rear paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open and push pill to back of mouth with right fore-finger. Hold mouth shut for a count of ten.

5) Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl and cat from top of wardrobe. Call spouse from garden.

6) Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front and rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get spouse to hold head firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill down ruler and rub cat's throat vigorously.

7) Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make note to buy new ruler and repair curtains. Carefully sweep Shattered Doulton figures from hearth and set to one side for gluing later.

8) Wrap cat in large towel and get spouse to lie on cat with head just visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force mouth open with pencil and blow down drinking straw.

9) Check label to make sure pill not harmful to humans, drink glass of water to take taste away. Apply band-aid to spouse's forearm and remove blood from carpet with cold water and soap.

10) Retrieve cat from neighbor's shed.  Get another pill. Place cat in cupboard and close door onto neck to leave head showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon. Flick pill down throat with elastic band.

11) Fetch screwdriver from garage and put door back on hinges. Apply cold compress to cheek and check records for date of last tetanus jab. Throw Tee-shirt away and fetch new one from bedroom.

12) Ring fire brigade to retrieve cat from tree across the road. Apologize to neighbor who crashed into fence while swerving to avoid cat. Take last pill from foil-wrap.

13) Tie cats front paws to rear paws with garden twine and bind tightly to leg of dining table, find heavy duty pruning gloves from shed, force cat's mouth open with small spanner. Push pill into mouth followed by large piece of fillet steak. Hold head vertically and pour 1/2 pint of water down throat to wash pill down.

14) Get spouse to drive you to the emergency room, sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers and forearm and removes pill remnants from right eye. Call at furniture shop on way home to order new table.

15) Arrange for local humane society or animal shelter to collect cat and ring local pet shop to see if they have any hamsters.

Gas and Energy Prices Got You Down? Use Less

This surprisingly obvious and surprisingly efficient advice comes from the Alliance to Save Energy:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Want to help the country save a quick million barrels of oil a day? Drive 5% less. Slow down. Inflate your tires.

Those three steps would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1.3 million barrels a day immediately, according to the Alliance to Save Energy, a conservation group running an efficiency campaign backed not only by environmental groups but also the auto and oil industries.

That's nearly twice the estimated daily oil production that could come from drilling in the Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, according to the government's Energy Information Administration.

Emphasis added.  See?  The small stuff matters too!!!  And these are things anyone with a car can do.  Want some handy facts that will make you sound both intelligent and informed?

The United States consumes 20 million barrels of oil a day, nearly 10 million of which goes to making gasoline. The world gobbles up 85 million barrels of oil in all.

To boost supply, many want OPEC to bring more crude to market and to open up more U.S. areas to drilling - off the coastlines and in Alaska.

But OPEC countries are already pumping vigorously: Last week, Saudi Arabia could come up with only an additional 200,000 barrels a day. Getting from the country's current output of around 9 million barrels a day to over 12 million barrels a day - their target over the next few years - will take time. Some analysts don't even think it can be done.

As for drilling more in the United States, years or decades are required to build the necessary pumping platforms and pipelines.

Eventually, experts say opening up all the areas currently closed to drilling might yield between 1.5 million and 3 million barrels a day, although those numbers are extremely rough estimates.

That ought to be enough to keep friends and foes chatting for a while.

You Know McCain is Desperate When . . .

. . . his advisers consider the political benefits of another terrorist attack in the U.S.

"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says [McCain adviser Charlie] Black. 'But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."

Of course, McCain disagreed with this take.

"I cannot imagine why he would say it," McCain said. "It’s not true. I’ve worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear. The Armed Services Committee, and pieces of legislation. Sponsoring with Joe Lieberman the 9/11 Commission so we could find out the causes and how to fix the challenges that we face to fix the security of our nation. I cannot imagine it. And, uh. So, I would … If he said that, and I do not know the context, I strenuously disagree."

But if he's so "surprised," why did he raise this issue in the actual interview?

[W]e were asking McCain to rise above the news and look ahead to the day seven months from now when, he hopes, he'll be sitting in the Oval Office. We wanted to know what single economic threat he perceives above all others. . . "Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences."

Sorry Charlie - and Johnnie - but when your mantra is the boogey-man of so-called "Islamic extremist" and you suggest that another attack could be devastating, and when you're running a campaign based on so-called "National security," isn't Black's comments an inevitable conclusion?  He was just cocky or stupid to say it out loud.

That's why I cannot vote for McCain.  There's no way I'm voting out of fear anymore.

If I Wanted This, I Would Have Voted Republican

Un-f***ing-beliveable

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a bill overhauling the rules on the government’s wiretapping powers and conferring what amounts to legal immunity to the telephone companies that took part in President Bush’s program of eavesdropping without warrants after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The bill cleared the House by 293 to 129, with near-unanimous support from Republicans and substantial backing from Democrats. It now goes to the Senate, which is expected to pass it next week by a wide margin.

What's the point of having a Democratic House and Senate if they are going to do this sh*t?

What kind of a country is it where, when the head of state asks you to do something that may well be illegal, but assures you that he considers it legal, you can't be held accountable for doing it?

Welcome to the new U.S. of A.

With Congress having largely abandoned its oversight obligations on this issue, and with little chance of Bush's Justice Department investigating itself, these lawsuits were really the only remaining avenue of accountability -- at least until the next administration.

But the new law would prohibit federal judges from addressing the merits of these suits. Instead, since the government did provide assurances about legality that the companies can easily document, judges would be required to dismiss them.

In a system of laws, a permission slip from the president isn't supposed to supersede duly enacted legislation -- and the Constitution.

This is so disappointing at so many levels it makes me sick.

Q: What's Worse than One Idiot?; A: Seventeen Idiots Trying to Get Pregnant

I can't think of a single excuse for a girl trying to get pregnant because it would be fun.  Can't excuse the girl, the parents, the community.  It's thoughtless and dumb.  What annoys me is that it's so dumb that you don't need to think about it too long or too hard to realize how dumb it is.

That's why things like this really give me heartburn.

GLOUCESTER, Mass. - A pact made by a group of teens to get pregnant and raise their babies together is at least partly behind a sudden spike in pregnancies at Gloucester High School, school officials said.

Principal Joseph Sullivan told Time [magazine] that nearly half of the expecting students, none over 16, were involved. Sullivan said students were coming to the school clinic multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and "seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were."

Emphasis added.  I may be showing my age - or my elitism - but I cannot recall ever coming across anyone of that age range who thought getting pregnant was a good idea.  I know of plenty of young boys and girls that are sexually active and when the girl gets pregnant she thinks she can handle it.  But none that has really said "hey Johnnie, come get me pregnant!"

Mayor Carolyn Kirk told The Associated Press on Friday that many factors are involved in the surge in pregnancies in her community, a hardscrabble fishing village which has fallen on tough economic times and cut teachers and services, including some health classes.

Emphasis added.  As far as I know, there are only two "factors" involved.  You know what they are.  Besides, can anybody say with a straight face that having health classes would have prevented this?  That's ridiculous.

Then again, Gloucester did give us The Perfect Storm so maybe there's something about this town that makes people do counter-intuitive things.

An Ignorant Mind is a Terrible Thing

I was checking out some latest polling from Rasmussen on offshore drilling.  Two findings stand out:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

No surprise there.  This, however, is pretty revealing.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don’t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

Emphasis added.  Some people don't know that

[a] 2007 Department of Energy study found that access to coastal energy deposits would not add to domestic crude oil and natural gas production before 2030 and that the impact on prices would be “insignificant.”

Emphasis added.  We have to wonder whether this is the best possible expenditure of time and effort.  Do we really want to risk the environmental harm associated with offshore drilling for relief that won't come for more than two decades down the road?  We can accomplish so many other things in terms of developing alternative energy sources between now and then.  We can do more to reduce our dependency on oil - foreign or domestic - if we raise the CAFE standards and we continue to provide tax incentives for hybrid and other similar vehicles.

Heck, if we can develop a cost-effective way to produce hydrogen, we can switch to fuel cell vehicles and (1) end most of our dependency on oil, (2) improve air quality, and (3) reduce the emission of greenhouse gases all in one fell swoop.

You want something done sooner?  Lets help stabilize Iraq and get oil production going.  Not quite the way I described on my previous post, but lets help create the conditions in Iraq that will allow this to happen.  Not with a bunch of multinationals and 60 U.S. bases to protect their interest.  That will have a greater effect than offshore drilling.

But most people don't know this because they are ignorant, and I mean it in the general sense of lacking knowledge of all the facts, not in the "they are dumb" sense.

Of course, the alternative is to give people what they ask for.  Let them open up the coasts to oil exploration, and watch the price of oil . . . stay the same or rise.

If You Thought the Iraq War Was Really About Oil . . .

. . . you'd be right.

BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq,as Saddam Hussein rose to power. 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production. . .

Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.

Emphasis added.  And what was the Iraq Petroleum Company?

The Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), until 1929 called Turkish Petroleum Company(TPC), was an oil company jointly owned by some of the world's largest oil companies, which had virtual monopoly on all oil exploration in Iraq from 1925 to 1961.

TPC obtained a concession to explore for oil in 1925, in return for a promise that the Iraqi government would receive a royalty for every ton of oil extracted, but linked to the oil companies' profits and not payable for the first 20 years. Drilling started immediately, and on October 15, 1927 oil was discovered at Baba Gurgur just north of Kirkuk. Many tons of oil were spilled before the gushing well was brought under control, and this sign of a large, valuable field soon proved to be true.

The discovery hastened the negotiations over the composition of TPC, and in July 1928 the shareholders signed a formal agreement: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which in 1935 became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and in 1954 BP), Royal Dutch/Shell, the Compagnie française des pétroles (CFP, which in 1991 became Total), and the Near East Development Corporation (a consortium of five large US oil companies, among them Standard Oil)each received 23.7% of the shares, and Calouste Gulbenkian the remaining 5%. TPC was to be organized as a nonprofit company, registered in Britain, that produced crude oil for a fee for its parent companies, based on their shares. The company was only allowed to refine and sell to Iraq's internal market, in order to prevent any competition with the parent companies.

The big loser was Iraq. The San Remo conference had stipulated that Iraqis should be allowed 20% of the company if they wanted to invest in it, but the oil companies successfully resisted Iraqi efforts to participate, despite pressure by the British government to accept Iraqi shareholders. In 1929 the TPC was renamed the Iraq Petroleum Company(IPC). . .

During the 1940s and 1950s, the company also obtained concessions to explore for oil in Dubai and other Gulf states. It retained its monopoly of exploration and development in Iraq until 1961, when the revolutionary government of General Qassem nationalized 99.5% of its concession areas in Iraq, leaving only the producing oilfields in the company's control. In 1971, the Iraqi government nationalized the remaining interests into the Iraq National Oil Company. This resulted in major increases in revenues for the Baath party government under Saddam Hussein to pursue massive infrastructure projects.

Emphasis added.  And there you have it.  It took 36 years but Big Oil is back to "help Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry."  And if you believe that, there's a nice patch of dry land right next to the Mississippi I'd like to sell you.