Simon says...

On Offshore Drilling

2010-04-06T15:52:00.001-07:00

The debate on offshore drilling is dragged down by, as most things in the United States, a misinterpretation of reality. The right believes that offshore drilling can play a big part in gaining energy independence. The left believes that any future drilling off of the continental shelf must be banned in order to prevent environmental catastrophes. The right wants it all for consumption and the left wants it all for preservation. Might there be also room for some sort of consensus? The president seems to think so.

President Obama isn't just throwing a hail mary to try to get energy legislation over the partisan hurdle health care reformed never managed to overtake. This is a strategically calculated plan that lulls some conservative hearts, has loopholes that should put liberal minds at ease, and allows for the establishment of legislation never before seen in the United Sates: a blueprint for the future.

Yet both the left and right aren't satisfied with this centrist approach. I would like to explain why I think the left and right don't see the full picture and why what the President has proposed is the makings of a plan we should be looking for.

They're Just Being Themselves

At first glance the two goals the right sees offshore drilling meeting, national security and energy independence, seem like sensible assertions. I will explain why that may not be the case.

The first and broader goal is national security. This argument is based on the premise that the nations from which we currently receive our oil are either unstable, vulnerable to some sort of extremism, or in the path of a country we may or may not go to war with in the near future. Another detail within the national security argument is that we will be taking money out of the hands of regimes who may inadvertently or knowingly finance terrorism.

The problem with this argument is that our oil-producing allies in the Middle East, the region most likely to be unstable, vulnerable to some sort of extremism, and in the war path, are Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia and are all for the most part stable governments. So what could possibly lead us to believe that there is a looming national security threat that these countries would either discontinue selling us oil or be forced into that predicament? The answer is, of course, Iran. The prospect of a nuclear Iran is frightening due to their hostile, anti-Semitic, Orwellian rhetoric as well as their support for organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. However, the prospect of war with Iran, even by proxy, may be even more worrisome.

If Israel were to strike Iran, Iran would of course retaliate. This retaliation could be in the form of military strikes against Israeli targets or by proxy through Hamas and Hezbollah or most likely both. They would also do their best to help fuel Muslim extremism and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan who would wage a terror campaign against Israel and U.S. interests abroad (and maybe even at home). Any preemptive action against Iran would also solidify support for the corrupt anti-Democratic government there and they would have more reason to seek out dissenters and imprison or hang them. It would also seem to many in the Arab world as more American imperialism through their puppet state of Israel and that would strengthen anti-Americanism in the region for decades to come.

While some may one day see war with Iran as a necessity, even by proxy it must be avoided at all costs and will be as long as we have a sensible administration in the White House. We do not have the resources to wage even a proxy war against Iran and it would completely undermine all of our national security efforts as well as the resistance to Iran's oppressive government, which benefits the West and humanity. Not to mention, bolster anti-Americanism. Therefore, the argument that drilling for oil at home for national security's sake has no substance since the national security threat isn't realistic because war with Iran is unrealistic unless our egotistical short-term thinking decides to make it so.

The second goal, which comes under the umbrella of the first is that many see offshore drilling as a key to energy independence for the United States. This creates jobs that create taxable income. Lets also not forget the money the government would make off of leasing the land to private companies. Plainly, some people, not just those on the right, see offshore drilling as a broad-spectrum antibiotic: job creation, at-home energy production, and revenue to offset deficits and the debt.

The problem with this assertion is that while some jobs may be created in the short term, the long term economic benefits are so far down the road that drilling for oil may begin to lose its popularity just as it reaches its heyday in job creation. These jobs would not be as persistent as jobs created by investments in nuclear energy for example. It goes without saying that curbing greenhouse gases will involve stopping the use of fossil fuels. Meaning a job created drilling off the coast of Virginia won't last more than a few generations. In addition, the amount of drilling that would take place will hardly put a dent into the unemployment figure we will have when such drilling would begin, an unknown number of years down the road.

Also, anyone familiar with the U.S. and its energy use knows full well that we sit on 2% of the world's oil reserves but use 20% of the world's oil. How exactly would we manage to break away from our dependence on oil from other countries when we use ten times as much oil as we have?

The right's dogma on offshore drilling doesn't have much foundation. The Cold War left a conservative finger that must point in the direction of an enemy to bolster political support and they have managed to tie that to offshore drilling. While whether or not offshore drilling will have a positive cost-benefit analysis in our economy is yet to be seen. However, this is their reality so at the moment they are just being themselves.

Its All About the Environment

The left opposes offshore drilling for a reason as broad and far reaching as national security and energy independence: concerns over the environment. Offshore drilling does in fact have a negative environmental impact. Each human being living in modern society happens to have a negative impact on the environment as well. So environmentalists offer solutions such as riding a bicycle to work as a more environmentally friendly way to commute. However, there is a reality that biking for an hour wearing a business suit in the midday sun may not be sensible. This is when environmentalists use what I deem the ride the bus rule.

The ride the bus rule is a compromise between the needs of daily living and environmentalism. Instead of taking a bicycle or walking, an individual uses their local method of mass transportation. The environmental impact of the bus distributed over the individuals using it is less than that of an individual driving their own car to work.

So just as buses are more environmentally friendly than cars, natural gas is more environmentally friendly than oil. Federal and state law has the potential to be even friendlier to the environment than both. By enacting laws at the state and federal level the left can manage to curb the negative environmental impacts of drilling. The possibilities are endless: banning drilling, permitting only natural gas drilling, or establishing a plethora of other regulations.

The reason the left must apply this rule to offshore drilling is because it is inevitable. No petition will take it out of the equation, however petitions may significantly reduce its impact. The best and only way to impact the offshore drilling policy is to ride the bus. And by riding the bus, its still all about the environment.

Taking the C(entrist) Bus

So as it turns out, offshore drilling isn't the cure-all the right is looking for and the left must deal with the policy's looming implementation. How can the left and right come to a consensus on this issue and still maintain their sense of self?

On the national stage Congress should place a provision in the energy legislation that establishes environmental guidelines for all offshore drilling. Democrats can offer Republicans the ability to drill in any state that declares offshore drilling legal as long as the site meets federal environmental standards. In return, the Republicans could concede to Democrats that no oil will be mined, only natural gas, and strong environmental standards be enacted.

Core Republican principles could be satisfied: drill baby drill and states' rights. The Democratic party receives bipartisan support on robust energy legislation and in turn curbs many of the negative environmental impacts that offshore drilling creates, perhaps even eliminating drilling for one of the most environmentally unfriendly substances on the planet.

The president's proposal isn't as thorough as the one suggested here. It places the decision making in the hands of the Executive branch while appealing to the right by allowing drilling in certain areas and to the left by making sure any drilling doesn't have a profound negative impact on the environment. It is, in essence, the type of centrist plan that can get bipartisan support that should be sought for policies as broad and far-reaching as the energy legislation.

Have I meant to suggest that the left and right work together in a bipartisan fashion to tackle one of our nation's largest problems? No. I am suggesting that there is a chance for the right and left to continue living in their realities and have a positive impact on our nation. The essence of the national security and energy independence arguments would remain relatively unchanged save for the realization that there can only be a limited scope of application: either no oil or some, and not all, land. And the argument that the environment is our most precious resource takes on the realism it often lacks by legislating regulations to curb offshore drilling's impact by providing the limited scope necessary to balance the legislative equation.

One does not have to give up what they stand for to be a centrist. They just need to misinterpret reality a little differently.

In Conservapedia-land Google search results are now truthiness points!

2010-03-12T18:36:00.000-08:00

Notice the red boxes?

The Google search "Obama and evil" has an ASTOUNDING 41,000,000 plus search results![5] It appears as if some people think Obama is not working for the common good of all Americans and for the common good of mankind! Perhaps, the idea to have the mass murderer Mao Zedong and a transvestite decorating the White House Christmas tree was a bad idea."

The Google search "Obama and incompetent" has 900,000 search results.[11] It appears as if the "Obama is the chosen one" paradigm is wearing mighty thin.

I guess Google searches have now begun to pass as sources of news in this wacky world of ours. I mean the 4,990,000 search results that show up for "Obama is an alien" must have some sort of significance right? Then there are the 82,600,000 search results for "we are all aliens". Lets not forget about the not insignificant 608,800 search results for "can farts kill you" that support the creation of a United Nations committee to determine whether or not flatulence is in fact lethal.

I guess search results are now truthiness points.

So then the 20,900,000 for "Glenn Beck is a moron", the 77,400,000 for "Fox News is bullshit", and the 432,000,000 search results for "George Bush is the worst president ever" must all have some sort of importance in Conservapedia-land.

Hey, I'm willing to be an alien if that means that the first most true fact in the world is "George Bush is the worst president ever" and the third most true is "Fox News is bullshit".

But then again, I'm pretty sure I'm not an alien and that the amount of internet search results a query has doesn't have a single thing to do with its factuality, no matter how much anyone's version of reality wants that to be the case.

What the Public Option Really Means to Us

2009-10-01T15:44:00.000-07:00

The public option has been debated by MSNBC and Fox News, Democrats and Republicans, "patriots" and "socialists" but it is fair to say that it is more than just a talking point or a potential policy disagreement. To many people across this country, roughly 216 million if we apply the recent New York Times poll to the general population, see this as something much greater than the significance of the Democratic or Republican parties, greater even than the labels of liberal or conservative; it is something more along the lines of, but not nearly as meaningful as, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without the metaphor, in plain terms, it is phrased thusly: does the system work?

Yes, the public option will force health insurance companies to lower prices because they will be competing with a company that isn't out to make a profit but who's primary concern is the well being of those it serves but few, if any, of these private insurers will go out of business because of it.

Some see it as a "government takeover of healthcare" and refuse to recognize that it is the government providing exactly what the name suggests: a public option. The most obvious public option that competes with private companies is the United States Postal Service and while it hasn't faired well in recent years with UPS and Fedex having expanded their infrastructure, the point of the USPS isn't to compete with UPS or Fedex but to offer a lower-cost alternative to the average American citizen. (Fedex even uses the United States Postal Service in areas where they do not operate.) So the public health insurance option, in essence, is founded on the same principle as the Postal Service: low-cost, acceptable-quality service for the average citizen who cannot afford what is offered by the private sector.

Do we let children, who could otherwise not afford to attend private school, not receive an education? Do we let Americans, who could otherwise not afford food, go without the money to buy it? The answer to both of these questions is no and it only requires one to follow simple logic to see that we cannot allow Americans who cannot afford health care to go without it as well.

Having said that, the debate over health care reform, as well as the coming cap and trade legislation, has once again revealed a more somber side to our government.

It is the very thing that begets doubt in our system of government, particularly doubt in the of faith we instill in our legislative branch.

It has shown us that our representatives are often more concerned with re-election than with making tough decisions that may put their careers in peril but that in turn will benefit the people which they serve; that playing chess with the issues at hand will crown them the victor in the next election year even if they lose some pieces during the game.

I feel confident in saying that they have underestimated the newly rekindled Progressive nature of the American people. The passage of a public option, which is necessitated by the need for liberal support in the House (and what I am sure will be much strong arming by the White House), will signify a cultural shift in Washington. That the change that dominated President Obama's campaign may very well be on its way. While Senator Baucus may not realize it, those who vote nay on the public option have little chance of being re-elected by their Democratic constituencies. (Senator Baucus actually supports the public option. Its the people that give him money to run for re-election that don't.)"Putting politics before the people..." will be the phrase uttered on television ads and radio stations across congressional districts from sea to shining sea. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few progressive Republicans winning primaries with similar expressions. However, Americans have seen political turmoil like this before.

I referenced civil rights legislation to health care reform not because I am trying to downplay the importance of a law that has insured the Constitution's application to all ethnicities and women. Legislation as monumental as that could have only come from the Great Society. However, if we see the legislation abstractly, without noting its specific intent, we will see that the dilemma that faced the United States government of 1964 is very much the dilemma faced by the United States government of 2009: what am I willing to risk for the sake of the people? The thoughts are the same: This legislation is long overdue and people are suffering for lack of it. Am I willing to step up to the plate and perform the duties that the people have entrusted me with or will I indulge my ego and hope to preserve this lifestyle?

So what will it mean when healthcare reform, including a public option, is passed?

It will be proof that the system actually works. That the people Americans have elected into office aren't just employed by health insurance companies and energy conglomerates but that they care. That they, like their constituents, have a stake in the future of this country and the prosperity of its people. That they can see into the generations ahead, as the Founding Fathers did, and make decisions that may not favor their party line and may not get them re-elected but will ultimately prove beneficial to our nation.

The Left Wing Identity Crisis

2009-06-22T19:58:00.000-07:00

In the beginning of May in 2007 MSNBC's Chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd declared that the GOP no longer agreed on the definition of Conservative. Todd cites the inconsistencies between Barry Goldwater, George W. Bush and every Republican in between as the reason for the question that now bewilders most Conservatives: What do we stand for? In the months following Barack Obama's election many on the left side of the political spectrum seem to be having a political identity crisis of their own.

Bill Maher recently said it best: "The Democrats are the new Republicans"; and many liberal voters may just agree. Take a look at the American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009. It requires only 15% of energy to come from renewable resources by 2021, despite strong scientific opinion suggesting the requirement should be 25% to 40% in order to avert consequences of global warming that may be catastrophic. The latter requirement being the strong, science-based legislation those who voted for President Obama were promised. Lets not just blame this on the re-election obsessed Congress either. Todd Stern, Obama's envoy to the climate change talks held in Mexico City, rejected the 40% standard proposed by the U.N. stating that those levels are "not feasible given where we're starting from." Maybe its because we're starting from the pockets of the utilities industry?

This typifies the dilemma facing those on the left. We got on the direct flight to progress, so whats with all of these stops? Can we support our captain when he supports the mutiny happening on board the ship? Special interests convinced Congress to give away 85% of carbon emission credits; money that would be used to offset rising energy prices for Americans. A fact that is now the crux of the Republican party's national energy tax argument. The Democrats may have been better off negotiating with the Republican party on nuclear energy and oil than wheeling and dealing inside their own while hanging Progressivism out to dry.

Today's real left doesn't have their head in the clouds. It is aware that to move forward negotiation is inevitable but why are the Democrats negotiating with special interests and not with the other half of the country? A reduction in carbon emissions by 25% or more by 2020, a larger push to begin using renewable resources (say 20% by 2020), and a tax on carbon emissions would have appeased the Democrats. The Republicans would have gotten a piece of the pie too: limited offshore drilling and construction of oil refineries and nuclear power plants. Not only would we have tackled climate change but energy independence as well. Not to mention create plenty of jobs.

That is the goal of today's progressive left: real bipartisan support for a progressive cause being accomplished to its full potential in the interest of the nation and the world. Progressivism should not be the goal of any one party but of the congregation and certainly not of any one political ideology.

It seems as though another shot will be dealt to the progressive cause in the guise of health care reform. With the momentum for expanded Medicare coverage already there it would be foolish to let special interests undermine the Obama Administration's message but it is already too late. One can only imagine what the hospital industry and pharmaceutical companies will get for the cost cutting measures. The message of hope and change in the future, a message that would appeal to the legislation's pioneering nature, has been lost in bank accounts of special interest on its way to the Congress.

But Congress is not alone in its beguiling ways.

Politico.com published an article in December of 2008 that summarized the worry that had began to plague the left-wing community: that then president-elect Obama would not hold true to many of the pledges that had won him the hearts, minds, and most importantly, the votes of liberals. Disappointingly, many of its predictions have come to pass.

Mr Obama has not repealed the Bush tax cuts. His no-nonsense, straight-forward declaration of objection to Don't Ask Don't Tell has now been brought into the realm of the political middle way: avoid alienating someone by alienating someone else. Within months of his election, he receded on his pledge to enact windfall profit taxes on oil companies and it seems to many that governmental transparency has come with some fine print.

But can we blame him? The Democratic party never had the essence of progress that got Barack Obama elected and made sure to bring him back down to the reality of the government's "You do this for me, I'll do that for you" existence after his election.

And that leaves liberals in a quagmire; who is representing the left's interest? One can only hope that President Obama is just navigating the political mire until the nation realizes that a progressive presidential branch needs to be supplemented by a progressive legislature. Still, even the definiton of progressive is vague and rising unemployment may spur voters to punish the Democrats instead of look to the future. Until then, liberals are left with a party impersonating them and giving them a bad image.

And we can only hope that real change is just slower than we expected.

We're still waiting.

2009-06-18T11:36:00.000-07:00

Dr Mr. President,

What happened to your promise to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell? I'm glad you recently extended federal employee spousal benefits to partners of the same sex but why some and not all? Oh yes, the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits extending health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners but haven't you completely opposed DOMA since before you entered the U.S. Senate? Why stop now?

And to be frank, that doesn't make up for not sticking to your promise to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell either or backing the Justice Department's filing in support of the Defense of Marriage act which touts itself as federal neutrality to a hot topic but clearly discriminates against homosexuals.

On another matter, why aren't you pushing for a larger part of the nation's energy to come from renewable sources instead of a measley 15% by 2021? New Jersey is on track to have 25% of its energy come from renewable sources by 2021. Not only that, but governors across the nation will be able to decrease that 15% to 12%. Its time you apporached the Senators and Congressman and told them to stop trying to get re-elected and start doing things that will make this country a better place and set an example for the rest of the world. Perhaps it is time for a term limit for Senators and Congressmen?

The same people who had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the bailed out financial firms. The same people who will be skirting around your ban on financial contributions from lobbyists by hosting a morning-after party on Friday, the day after the Democratic National Campaign Committee dinner that you will be attending. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee invite reads: "Please note that the Friday Issues Conference is NOT subject to lobbyist restrictions, though the event is intended for personal contributions only..." Maybe you should consider passing legislation with restrictions on lobbyist contributions and then we could all see how willing and able our representatives are to comply?

Sir, your predecessor did so many things wrong, but he did them. For now all I can see is that you want to play the moderate so you can get re-elected. However, now its time for you to do things. Its time to enact real energy reform. Crank up that renewable energy requirement and make the energy companies in this nation, instead of the people, sweat a little. Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell and keep the promises you've made.

Because let me tell you something Mr. President, the people that don't like what you're doing didn't vote for you nor will they in 2012. So, please, for this country's sake, stop trying to please them and get on with it already.

You are change we have been waiting for, but unfortunately, we're still waiting.