OIL POLICY

One of the short-sighted policies that I've never understood is the Republican's joy when oil prices go down, as they have been lately.  The price of gasoline at the pump drops, people drive more with less concern and even rush out to purchase that gas guzzler that they've had their eye on.  Naturally, the logical result of this consequence is even more CO2 that makes it up into the atmosphere, exacerbating the growing climate change.

I heard one legislator today brag that the age of alternative fuels is dead, since they can't compete with oil.  That's certainly true at today's prices, but what happens when the producers decide to withhold production and the price shoots up again, as it surely will.  And what about the subsidies that big oil gets in the form of depletion allowances that tilt the playing field in their favor.  Yes, renewable sources don't deplete a resource - and that's exactly why they should be subsidized when necessary - and tax advantages for oil cut.   But the chances of that scenario coming to pass when big oil is such a monolith is minimal, to say the least.  Yes, we have the best Congress that money can buy.

But aside from the climate change debate, consider that eventually, as it surely must, the US supply of hydrocarbons will begin to taper off.  If we have burned it all in transportation and electricity generation, then there will be nothing left for recyclable uses such as plastics. From that standpoint, we would be better off to import as much as we can, saving our own resources for when all other sources are depleted.

RG III - Again

How often do faithful Redskins fans have to put up with the adoring commentary about this guy by supposedly-knowledgeable sports writers.  Every time he appears, he makes yet another bonehead maneuver - running when he should be getting rid of the ball, waiting too long, throwing the ball off balance, throwing his body about with abandon.  The list goes on.  There is always a convenient excuse; usually something like "he's learning a new system."
Yes, his first year, he looked great.  But wasn't that because he was still operating in the college mode, where the crowd expects broken-field running from their quarterbacks.  But in the big leagues, the defensive players are bigger, faster and meaner.  Operating in the same way means subjecting yourself to season-ending injuries. 
Then when he inevitably gets injured, a substitute comes on and performs spectacularly as happened again this past weekend  Passing well, handing off well, reading the defense well, and so on.  But still the coaches and fans remain tied to the image, instead of to the facts.  The guy is over his head.  Let's give the other guys a shot at the ring.

ACA Introduction

The introduction of the Affordable Care Act certainly hasn't gone well in the early days. 

The Feds picked a clearly unqualified firm to set up and run the web site.  Knowledgeable software engineers were horrified to learn the technical design choices that they made.

After some time now, the signup process is now going much better, and the naysayers have less to complain about.  I suspect that once a large consort of people have signed up, that it will be politically impossible to repeal it.


 I think it was unfortunate that Pres. Obama made the ill-advised statement to the effect that if you have a plan, you can keep it.  Unfortunately he didn't consider the possibility that insurance companies might take the opportunity to cancel their policies, now that their employees can get coverage on their own.

The people that I have spoken to have told me that the premiums for similar coverage under ACA that they have been paying previously are not more expensive, but less.  That fact hasn't been well reported.

A Way Out?

Let me get this straight.  John Kerry tosses out a "casual" remark about securing Syria's chemical weapons as a way of forestalling a devastating but limited (Hunh?) cruise missile attack. 

Then the Russians snap it up and run with the ball.   But Syria is their long-term client state.  Where did it get its chemical weapons from in the first place?  Russia has already said that they would re-stock any weapons destroyed in an air attack.  Why not their chemical weapons too? 

Who would have thought that the Russkies would step in with a solution?  Or is it?  Aside from its perhaps being a delaying ploy to move weapons to better locations and surround them with civilians, can you imagine the logistical nightmare of trying to collect and transport deadly poisonous materials across a country torn by sectarian strife?   Some military pundit said that would take 75,000 troops.  So much for "no boots on the ground."

Stay tuned.

Syria - Not Again!

As of today, the drums of war are beating in Washington, with the world anxiously waiting to see what the US (the world's cop) will do about the latest horror in the Middle East.

Here we are many thousands of miles away, dependent on some of the countries in the area for our fuel, and those same countries aren't willing to commit their own material and personnel resources to solve the problem that will, in the end, spill over to them, too.

So we wait.

OK.  Someone in Syria launched a chemical attack.  Many people died.  But far more than that have already died by conventional attacks.  So what makes this that much worse?  It's because we have set an arbitrary line in the sand.  What if it was the rebels who did it?  What if it was a renegade element of the Syrian Armed forces?  Is this another case of cherry-picked "evidence" as we saw in Iraq?  Can we trust the government to properly evaluate the intelligence?

Why should we act in this case and not in Darfur, Congo, or dozens of other hot spots where even more people were killed by the wanton acts of a power-hungry dictator?  Doesn't acting in this case and none of the others devalue the death of the many thousands who have already died in Syria?

What is so special about chemical warfare.  Certainly the experience in WWI led to an aversion to it, and treaties to prevent its use in the future.  But the future is now, and the number of people who have been killed by chemical attack is still only a tiny fraction of those who were killed by conventional weapons.  Why the difference in how it is viewed?  Dead is dead, no matter how it happens.

I think that Obama is right in seeking political cover by putting Congress on the spot and letting the people's representatives go on record.  Look what happened in the UK.  Their parliament said "no-way".

Great Fun & Educational, Too.

A few years ago, Connie and I signed up for Fairfax County's Citizen's Police Academy.  During the nine weeks of once-a-week classes, we were exposed to many of the same 'practicals' that the recruits do.  This included driving a cruiser real fast on the closed track, firing weapons, experiencing a simulated robbery in progress, and lots more.

So when we heard that the County was going to offer the same kind of experience in their Fire & Rescue Department, we signed up.  This was the first time their Citizens Academy had been offered, so we weer the guinea pigs.  It was very well organized, and we learned a lot about the operation of the Department.

If your local County or City has such an experience, I highly recommend it for you.  You will learn so much about the operation of these professionals that you never could have imagined.  If they don't have one, you might want to suggest that they do - education of the citizens in these first responders is something that we all need to know something about.

Much ado about nothing?

As you know, there is a lot of hoopla in the press about the IRS situation and their aggressive investigation of applicants having Tea Party or Patriot in their group's names.

What surprises me about this is that no reporter has dug deeper to disclose whether this IRS practice is common when they evaluate any group seeking tax-exempt status, regardless of political affiliation.  Without that information, we have no way to know whether that is common practice, or whether those groups were singled out for special attention.

For example, how about groups with Democrat or Progressive in their names?

After all, political groups are not allowed tax-exempt status, so it seems perfectly reasonable that the IRS needs to make inquiries about their intentions, financing, etc.  If that were to happen, I suspect that we would learn that other groups were similarly quizzed.