Stephane Dion's carbon tax proposals may
well be the most sensible policy yet proposed on the issue of the
environment-- but are voters sophisticated enough to accept that there is a
need for structural change in our economy to reflect the new realities of
global energy use? Are they smart enough to not think they can
continue to live in a world of cheap oil when China and India are both
increasing demand at astounding rates? One anchor asked the reporter
in the field, "and how are we going to get those gasoline prices to go down
again". Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Even people who
should know better can be heard muttering about bad timing-- gas prices are
already up to record levels and here he wants to raises taxes on it.
What is happening is
this. Gas prices are going up because expected consumption
exceeds supply. It sounds like most people want to increase
consumption (by lowering prices), which, of course, will reduce supply even
faster, which, of course, will inevitably result in even higher prices. Dion's
proposals actually shift the tax burden so that consumers are rewarded for
reducing consumption and for using alternative fuels. Even better-- it
rewards clean energies and punishes energy consumption that contributes to
climate change. You'll notice that this took more than one "quip" to
explain. That might-- sigh-- means it's doomed as a political move.
"No new taxes" sounds much more appealing on your doorstep or in a 30-second
radio ad.
June 23, 2008
It's all relative. So
we have here the shocking realization that Obama is human after all, and
capable of making the same kind of moral and ethical compromises that most
politicians make... it is still probable that the election of
Obama will improve the U.S. government by a huge margin for the simple
reason that we are more likely to have competent people in charge of
government policy for the first time in 8 years.
Just how perverted is this
generation of voters? McCain feels no need to hide the fact that he
would allow the CIA to continue to use torture. TORTURE. On
human beings. As if we were not morally superior to terrorists and
murderers and torturers.
No candidate in this coming
election-- wait, is Ralph Nader running?-- has proposed to return the U.S.
to democratic constitutional greatness and honor and decency. There
are no Christian candidates in this election. There is no god in this
election.
Torturing the New York Times:
Why,
in this article, does the New York Times-- supposed bastion of liberal
dissent-- refer to torture as "enhanced interrogation techniques". Who
the hell told them to use this phrase instead of the word "torture"?
Is this because they are giving McCain and Bush the benefit of the doubt?
Well, it might not be torture, after all? It might be the euphemism?
Geez, where are the real liberals when you want one!
Barack Obama supported and voted in
favor of the recent wiretapping bill that grants immunity to telephone
companies that cooperated with the Administration's illegal requests for
wiretaps on Americans receiving or making foreign telephone calls.
The so-called liberal media has completely dropped the ball on
this one. Why is this not a scandal?
George Bush refuses to admit that his Administration acted illegally when
they requested the wiretaps. He continues to assert that the requests
were legal. If they were legal, there is no need for immunity.
The courts, as is their role in a constitutional democracy, have the
authority and right to decide the lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against those
Telcos. This law circumvents the constitution by providing retroactive
immunity for crimes the government refuses to admit were crimes. This
is insane. This is impeachable. This is obscene.
This is an out and out betrayal of all the bullshit platitudes about constitutions and freedoms and
due process that America constantly foists on the world as justification for
all the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Barack Obama also supports the
ethanol industry in its Disney-esque fantasy of replacing foreign oil with
domestic plants. Everyone can already see what the results of this
policy will be: oil will continue to cost more, and ethanol will have an
absolutely negligible impact on domestic consumption while driving up food
prices in the poorest parts of the globe. Even worse, Obama does not
support dropping tariffs on imported Brazilian suger-cane ethanol which at
least provides a far better return on the energy conversion (8-1, vs.
ethanol's 2-1). Why? Because he wants the support of the
Midwestern farmers who stand to benefit enormously from the ridiculous
government subsidy of ethanol prices.
Put it this way: the oil industry
is not worried about ethanol. Think about that a lot. Think
carefully about it: the oil industry LOVES ethanol. The oil
industry's stooges in the White House are pushing ethanol enthusiastically.
The oil industry's stooges in the White House have, so far, successfully
torpedoed a bill that continues giving tax incentives to other alternative
forms of energy like wind and solar power.
For those who think Obama will
bring a sprig of fresh ideas to the White House, these two issues are bad
omens. The first is a classic political compromise, an opportunistic
sell-out to the enduring Democrat fear that they won't appear to be tough
enough to take on all those zillions of terrorists out there blowing up
buildings in Des Moines, Iowa, or Cedar Rapids, or Flint, or Greensboro, and
so on. Oh my God-- we can't let them think that John McCain will be
more willing to undermine the constitution than we are!
The second is the classic
trade-off of special interests against the genuine interests of the American
people. There are numerous lobbyists or other agents associated
with the ethanol industry working with Obama's campaign. That's
disappointing.
The optimist hopes that Obama is
making these compromises to get into office, so that once he gets into
office he can resume his principled leadership and persuade Americans to
support the right course of action. I tend to think it is more
likely that once he gets into office, he will make the same compromises that
most politicians usually make and things will not be so different after all.