A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 30, 2006Comments
Not to be a complete blogwhore, but I have a post over at SF asking a provocative question: what if we shouldn't renew the VRA? Read all about it. Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2006 09:49 AMI pretty amazed that there have been zero comments here or on Stubborn about this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701646.html The Washington Post SUPPORTS offshore drilling, which passed the Senate anyway.
On the other hand, tankers coming from all over the world have had multiple spills in US waters, if we could reduce that.... Posted by: Dan at June 30, 2006 09:52 AMWhy is that so surprising to you Dan? My guess is that it's probably pretty popular in the streets to find ways to increase domestic fuel consumption, and offshore drilling is sort of "out of sight out of mind" compared to say drilling in ANWR. ANWR seems to have some sort of magical symbolic value that has made it a cause celebre, so I wouldn't be surprised if thedemocrats energy policy strategy is to support lots of ways to say yes to finding and saving energy so that they'll be fortified the next time ANWR drilling comes up and they can then position themselves as superior moral gairdians of the environment. And I expect most people will see it this way. Which is a little peculiar, because in general I'd guess that there's much more potential danger from spilling oil in the ocean than there is to spilling it on land. Posted by: bk at June 30, 2006 10:25 AMits suprising because the washington post is nearly as psycho liberal and partisan as the LA Times and NY Times Posted by: Dan at June 30, 2006 10:27 AMWhich is a little peculiar, because in general I'd guess that there's much more potential danger from spilling oil in the ocean than there is to spilling it on land.Yes, but think of the Caribou! Won't someone please think of the Caribou? ;) Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2006 10:30 AM Yes, Simon, both of the Caribou in ANWR might be a little put off if you killed the only tree that is there. Posted by: Dan at June 30, 2006 10:40 AMWaPo is not reflexively doctrinal, and the technology for offshore has come quite a ways since the original bans were passed. I don't think we've had a major platform spill in this hemisphere since '79, and that was a blowout/blowup on a Mexican exploratory platform (Ixtoc 1). As you note, tankers spill more oil every year than offshore platforms have in the last decade or two. Katrina wiped out dozens of Gulf platforms, but the only resulting spills from the storm were storage tanks inland and wrecked ships losing fuel. That's pretty solid performance by the offshore producers. Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 10:54 AMThere's a tree in AWR? Where? Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 10:55 AMLet me rephrase--WaPo reporting is not reflexively doctrinal...and they even let moderates on the op/ed pages at times. Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 10:56 AMHere's a new one: A Congressman representing the city of Houston has introduced legislation that would cut off crime-fighting money TO HIS OWN CITY because the city police won't check the immigration status of Hispanics they come across. And of course, the House passed it. Is this not the most asinine thing you've ever heard? I just blogged it at WeekendPundit.com, but welcome comments. Sadly, the local media hasn't given it nearly the attention it deserves. Posted by: WeekendPundit at June 30, 2006 12:13 PMthe city police won't check the immigration status of Hispanics they come across "Come across"? Or "arrest?" I don't think police should walk around asking any of us for citizenship papers. But if they arrest you on a valid charge, I think they should investigate your identify to ensure that you are who you say you are and that you're not in violation of any laws. And that should include checking citizenship right along with looking for outstanding warrants. Police officers are sworn to uphold the law. If you're an illegal alien, you're an illegalalien. I want our country's laws and policies to be coherent. Either we should enforce the laws as they were intended, or we should democratically change the laws to correspond with how they're being enforced. Either suffices. I want the rules to be clear, and I want each person subject to the rules to respond to them with the expectation that they'll be subject to the rules as they have been crafted. That's the fair way to run a democratic country governed by laws. Schizophrenia between the laws as written and as enforced fosters corruption, decay, and respect for democracy and its laws. Posted by: bk at June 30, 2006 12:55 PMI don't mean arrest, I mean "encounter." As in, question as witnesses, or even victims of crimes. The mayor and police chief have made it clear that it's a bad idea, and even some INS-type officials have said the city does a good job of notifying them when appropriate. Such an issue is the subject of a city charter amendment a local group wants on November's ballot that would permit -- even demand -- police to ask the immigration status of people they encounter in routine situations. Posted by: WeekendPundit at June 30, 2006 01:11 PMIn their defense, local law enforcement is focused on local laws nd public safety and has limited resources. They're not the INS, and immigration offenses range from civil violations to misdemeanors to felonies, and they're not something local LEO's are trained in. Toss in other factors, such as the very real possibility of being sued for discrimination and racial profiling, the difficulty of meshing with federal immigration authorities for information and records, and the limited resources of local law enforcement, immigration enforcement will NEVER be a priority for them. If, say, LAPD locked up every illegal immigrant it came across just long enough to turn them over to the INS, do you have any idea of how much in the way of resources would be required? Every dollar and man-hour of that would come directly at the cost of their primary responsibilities of local law enforcement and public safety. Unless they're committing crimes or show up in the warrants databases, local law enforcement is never going to pay much attention to immigration law violators. Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 01:12 PMHow, exactly, does he propose to check their immigration status? Does anyone here routinely carry proof of citizenship? Passport? Birth Certificate? (and how do you prove it is actually yours?) Personally, I only have a passport with me when departing or returning from outside the country. And, while my family has been in California since the late 1870s at least, there are Hispanics here whose families have been citizens of the United States for more years and more generations. I'm thinking they would be just as challenged to come up with a reasonable "proof of citizenship" as I would. But I suspect that the Congressman's bill will pass. For the simple reason that it means more money for all the other Congressmen to take home. Sad. Posted by: wj at June 30, 2006 01:18 PM"Congressman [Culberson] representing the city of Houston has introduced legislation that would cut off crime-fighting money TO HIS OWN CITY because the city police won't check the immigration status of Hispanics they come across. And of course, the House passed it. Is this not the most asinine thing you've ever heard? I just blogged it at WeekendPundit.com, but welcome comments. Sadly, the local media hasn't given it nearly the attention it deserves."
"None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used in contravention of section 1373 of title 8, United States Code." Cong. Rec. H4731. So the truth is considerably less inflammatory than a Congressman "cut[ting] off crime-fighting money TO HIS OWN CITY because the city police won't check the immigration status of Hispanics they come across." The truth is much closer to what Brian suggested ("'Come across'? Or 'arrest?'"): Rep. Culberson noted in introducing the amendment that: [T]he City of Houston has a policy, in violation of Federal law, that prohibits Houston police officers from asking whether or not an individual they pick up is in the United States illegally ... Federal law is very clear that local governments, local law enforcement agencies, cannot have any policy that prohibits or restricts the ability of a police officer from determining someone’s presence in the country, whether or not they are legal. [This] amendment simply enforces existing Federal law and makes it clear that, in order for a local government or police agency to receive Federal money, they must comply with Federal law and follow Federal law in determining whether or not the person they have detained is here illegally. H4731-32. Pratically the only argument was a semantic spat between Rep. Culberson and Rep. Jackson-Lee: Jackson-Lee complained that "[t]he 'sanctuary' terminology ...is a misnomer. It is a suggestion that law enforcement has actually put a welcome mat out for criminals. It is well known that any criminal that does a criminal act or is stopped for a traffic infraction is, in fact, taken care of by the local municipality." Culberson argued that "the sanctuary policy my colleague is attempting to protect is a policy designed to protect and shield criminal aliens, and my amendment enforces Federal law. Federal law is intended to uncloak those criminal aliens and allow local law enforcement officers to identify people like the Railway Killer so they can turn them over to Federal authorities." Id. Jackson-Lee has a reasonable concern also that there is a danger of creating an unfunded mandate here, and that point is not inconsequential, but as Rep. Campbell (R-Cal.) pointed out, "[this] amendment simply says you cannot use Federal funds to violate Federal law. Pretty simple. Pretty logical. Do not use Federal funds to violate existing Federal law ... [D]o not prohibit your law enforcement from cooperating on immigration issues." H4733. You really shouldn't trust what you read in the papers, particularly when you can read the actual debate and form an opinion of your own. If Culberson's amendment is really as unpalatable to you as you suggest, all you have to do is make the argument for why the Federal Government should reward cities that operate policies in violation of Federal Law. Be careful to elide the Supremacy Clause while you're at it. Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2006 01:48 PMIn case anyone wants some additional background, a logical follow-up question would be, if the Culberson Amendment enjoins "funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act [from] be[ing] used in contravention of section 1373 of title 8, United States Code," what does 8 U.S.C. § 1373 say? Inter alia, it says: [A] Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2006 01:55 PM Kudos Simon. Well done. There'a an awfully big difference between "you must always check citizenship status" and "you may not prohibit checking citizenship status." And I think it's very on target to say that local laws prohibiting checking were pretty much put in place to protect illegal undocumented immigrants from having their illegal status uncovered. Which speaks directly to my point that I want our country's laws and policies to be coherent. Either we should enforce the laws as they were intended, or we should democratically change the laws to correspond with how they're being enforced. Either suffices. Establishing a law but prohibiting some law enforcement officers from making even a cursory attempt to check whether its being obeyed is culturally schizophrenic. Tully, your practical point is well taken, of course. Posted by: bk at June 30, 2006 02:26 PMCulberson is supporting the citizens' initiative that will require police to check the immigration status of people they encounter in daily routines. Culberson says: "the sanctuary policy my colleague is attempting to protect is a policy designed to protect and shield criminal aliens, and my amendment enforces Federal law." He says Houston and other cities "have adopted sanctuary policies which prevent law enforcement officers from inquiring about immigration status." Bob Rutt, special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Houston, was quoted as saying "Houston is not a sanctuary city, by the definition. They do cooperate with us." This measure is not intended to force cooperation with the INS but to promote the initiative. He supports inquiries about immigration status not just of those arrested but any the police encounter and choose to question. This isn't anti-immigration, but anti-Hispanic. Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with this, because there is no federal statute requiring municipal police departments to arbitrarily question immigration status. As I asked earlier, would such a call to question all blacks in Florida to find illegal Haitians be approved? To call Houston a "sanctuary" city is a joke, as is this measure. Posted by: WeekendPundit at June 30, 2006 03:36 PMAdd this: I must say that prohibiting local governments from barring the police from checking immigration status is far less of a problem than the original post suggested. But I am still curious what means is proposed to do this -- even though, being blue eyed and blond, I am unlikely to be hassled personally. I can see checking the validity of papers, but what do you do if someone claims to have been born here? Hold them while you get their birth certificate? Ask for a Social Security Numbers (which, last I heard, by law can only be requested in connection with employment or other source of income)? And what do you do if the person says that they beg, sponge off their relatives, etc.? For that matter, it is recommended that you NOT carry your Social Security card, and there is no recommendation that you have the number memorized. Seriously, how are you expected to prove your citizenship when walking down the street? Posted by: wj at June 30, 2006 03:46 PMExactly what wj said. I'm not willing to have to prove my citizenship just to walk down the street or get some basic government services. "May I see your papers please?" has no place in our society. What if you're the citizen child of legal immigrants, but you grew up in an isolated area and so still either don't speak English or speak it with a serious accent? Do you have to carry a card guaranteeing that you're a real, honest-to-god American citizen? If you forget your card one day, do you get tossed on a bus and shipped down to Mexico? Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2006 03:52 PMOK, WP, Culberson is supporting that initiative. But the legislation he introduced doesn't cut off money if police don't check immigration status, it just says they can't spend federal money if they disregard the relevant law, right? Can we assume that since you didn't address that point, you're conceding it? Like I've said, I don't support any initiative that amounts to giving the police wide discretion in asking people for citizenship papers. But I'm not troubled by allowing LEO to check such status when subjects are arrested. I notice that you are now talking about the local initiative, not the federal amendment. When you say that this measure is a joke, are you referring to the federal amendment or the local initiative? What's your stance on each? Let see where the rubber meets YOUR road...Even more directly: Do you believe that local law enforcement officers ought to be allowed (at their own discretion or under some fairly-applied law enforcement policy) to check the immigration status of arrested subjects? Or do you believe that it's OK that some localities PROSCRIBE police officers from doing such checking? Posted by: bk at June 30, 2006 03:53 PMBK, I agree, police officers who arrest someone have every right to question their status. And, that is the policy Houston has today. As Bob Rutt says, Houston does that now, and routinely works with the INS on such issues. But the citizen's initiative goes a step further, allowing police to question virtually anyone they come across about their immigration status. Most officers realize to do so would scare the Hispanic community away from working with the police to solve crimes, or even report them. But it leaves open the door for officers to abuse the "right" to question anyone and use it to threaten or coerce people. Let's remember, Houston Police do not have a great relationship with the local Hispanic community, going back to 1978 and Joe Campos Torres, who was beaten and tossed handcuffed into a bayou to drown by police officers. My primary point on the federal law is that the requirement is that local police do not interfere with or impede identification of illegal aliens. To suggest Houston's policy of prohibiting asking general citizens during routine contact about immigration status is "sactuary" policy is wrong, and that's what Culberson directly claims. He says "If they (the city) are in compliance with the law, and they can prove it to the Justice Department, then they don't have anything to worry about." Sure, but that delays federal funding at a time when the city has become one of the nation's deadliest. And perhaps my biggest concern is that this is someone who represents the city in Congress, using his position to push an agenda currently heaidng to a vote. I don't have a problem with him campaigning for the initiative, it's a free country. But to withhold money needed to protect lives and property in an effort to advance his political agenda is, simply, wrong. At least, IMHO. Posted by: WeekendPundit at June 30, 2006 04:11 PMI have no problem with local LEO's checking on immigration status or exchanging info with the INS or other agencies as appropriate. I have a massive problem with either prohibiting them from checking or requiring them to check. The need to make checks at times is clearly a legitimate function of law enforcement. Requiring such checks of local LEO's is forcing them to perform federal law enforcement functions, and is clearly inappropriate. To throw a little more grist on the mill, anyone who has ever done a patrol shift in an immigrant/ethnic neighborhood knows that information about the immigration status of individuals provides a lot of help to the officers actually out there on the street. It gives them an additional tool (and it's a discretionary one, which will drive some folks around the bend) in suppressing crime in those areas. Especially in fighting gang activity. EX: Jose Gangbanger is known by local law enforcement to be a MAJOR player in his community's illegal and gang activities, but he's very careful, and no one can manage to build a criminal case on him. No one will testify--they're not going to risk being killed so that Jose can get a year for conspiracy. But Jose's also known to be an illegal. Gee, can anyone possibly think of any "quick fix" for the problem of Jose? Even if there's no Jose to use this tool against, the information of who is and who isn't legal is still a useful tool. Even when it's not being used. When the locals know that Officer Friendly KNOWS who's legal and who isn't, but doesn't use that knowledge to assist the INS, Officer Friendly gets a LOT more cooperation and assistance from the community. This isn't theory. This is real life. Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 04:18 PMTully, great point. For the sake of arguement, let's say Officer Friendly is more like Vic Mackey from The Shield. Do you think locals still whisper tips in his ear? I agree, knowing immigration status is a useful tool. I have indeed done patrols in the wonderful town of Pasadena, Texas, with a sizable low-income and Hispanic communities. And it is very tempting to give them that extra ability. But there's a difference between asking Mama Ninfa if the drug dealer down at the corner is an illegal, and asking her for her own documentation. If police are going to be allowed to do this, then I say we go all the way: National ID cards. After all, if we're asking half of the nation's population to carry such ID, why not all? What's the gang's opinion on national ID cards? Posted by: WeekendPundit at June 30, 2006 04:34 PMFor the sake of arguement, let's say Officer Friendly is more like Vic Mackey from The Shield. Do you think locals still whisper tips in his ear? With bullets. A Vic Mackey type would be in prison pretty quickly, most places. Even his co-workers wouldn't tell him diddly, and supervisers and DAs would eat him for lunch. If someone didn't kill him first. But Mackey's a fictional character. The difference is in knowing or asking when talking to someone, as compared to requiring them to prove their citizenship. If Mama Ninfa is close-mouthed, just mentioning that you have better things to do than kiss La Migra's ass and aren't worried about such things can work wonders. Please note: I do not say that LEO's should be able to DEMAND citizenship proofs, or arrest folks on suspicion of being illegals. They shouldn't. As noted, that would require local LEO's to become experts on the labyrinth of immigration regulations--some "illegals" are just civil violators, not criminal ones. But there's no reason LEO's can't ask, just as there's no reason for them not to put someone at ease by asking about their kids, or about their neighbor's buying bushels of ephedrine twice a week. Requiring them to play La Migra is Right Out. That's simply not their job. OTOH, using La Migra to take problems off of your hands is entirely fair play. And letting immigration status be a tool in the box can't be excluded. At some point you have to acknowledge that depriving the police of flexibility is hamstringing them just as much as is overloading them with the agendas and duties of other agencies. Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 05:08 PMWP... one of the problems we're facing in this country, I think, is that we have become so incredibly fearful of giving public officials any discretion, that we paralyze goverment from acting effectively. Could cops abuse the ability to ask for documentation? You bet. They can also abuse their guns, their billy clubs, you name it. But the possibility of abuse does not mean that we should remove sometimes valuable and appropriate tools from the hands of the authorities, or so tightly constrain them with rules that a computer would do a better job of determining what rule to follow when. So, I'm with Tully 100%. Cops should be neither mandated nor prohibited from asking about immigration status. As for a national ID card, I'm 100% against it. Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2006 05:11 PMI think we agree, the police should be able to tap INS to help against criminals, but police should not be able to just blindly walk up to anyone on the street and demand proof of citizenship. I think the problem is that, like with certain other hot political topics, any potential discussion or middle ground gets drowned out by both sides screaming extreme views. I believe we can strike an acceptable bargain where police have the tools they need to fight crime but we can still protect people who are here illegally from being hounded by overzealous police. Centrists of the world unite, all that stuff. Nice discussion today, allowing me to avoid work throughout the afternoon. Have a great Fourth of July weekend, all. Posted by: WeekendPundit at June 30, 2006 05:17 PMGlad to help anyone avoid work, WP! As my final thought on the subject, I will, as always, point out that details are important. There's a vast difference between the police having a right to walk up to anyone and "demand proof" of citizenship and the police having a right to ask about citizenship status. Very different things, demand versus ask. P.S. It is, unfortunately, already settled law that you are required to give your name to the police if they ask you to identify yourself. Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2006 05:41 PMJust a last shot. What I saw done once in Denver with a Jose was slick. They arrested the guy on a felony charge, then after booking turned him over to the INS. Jose went back to Mexico, his pic and prints went into the national database--as did the warrant for FTA on felony charges a few weeks later. So whenever he's picked up inside our borders, he's automatically jailed on the outstanding warrants. The only way out of jail for him is through INS, and back to Mexico. Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 06:43 PM"My guess is that it's probably pretty popular in the streets to find ways to increase domestic fuel consumption, and offshore drilling is sort of "out of sight out of mind" I like the law the way it is meaning states can opt in or out of offshore drilling at will. The Senate bill forces states to allow offshore drilling. And I'm sure we can all see where states like Florida or California may not want the view from their beaches to be littered with drilling rigs. Odds are if it passes it'll be fought tooth and nail by a few states in court. Posted by: Dyre42 at July 1, 2006 12:38 AMI submit this off shore drilling is the wrong way to invest. See this. We need to support Darpa's crash DOD reaseaarch into fuel cells. We need to jump quickly to 21st century energy generation and make a bundle exporting such technology to the world. ANWR simply does not have the oil to sustain our economic engine. Canadian Tar oil deposits and world wide coal contains enough energy to get us to hydrogen power some decades away. We all know this and Congress should be moving in this direction instead of pumping life into 20th century fixes. Period. P.S. ever try to wash of the tar balls from a Miami beach visit? Salmon is under siege in Alaska as well. What kind of world is every one planning to leave for their grandchildren? Posted by: Maxtrue at July 1, 2006 09:13 AMMaxtrue: Let the market decide. And it's not just ANWR. MMS estimates there's 85 billion barrels of undiscovered oil off our coasts. Hydrogen is a feelgood "future fuel" for the politicians so they can sasy they're Doing Something. It'll never be practical. On the other hand, biodiesel from algae oil has much greater potential and does not have the same storage and cost problems associated with hydrogen and fuel cells. Algal biodiesel can be used in present diesel engines, which enables us to use present infrastructure rather than invest hundreds of billions in hydrogen. Also look up butanol. Posted by: JonBuck at July 1, 2006 09:52 AMWant fries with that? :-) Hydrogen will be practical when [a] practical and affordable storage cells that allow comparable range to gas/deisel vehicles are developed, and [b] the conversion efficiency of using non-portable energy to make hydrogen fuel falls into a price range competitive with other portable fuels. Offshore rigs have advanced to the point where the fear of spills from offshore drilling is approaching completely silly. Katrina wiped out dozens of rigs in the Gulf, but the only real spills from the hurricane were fuel from wrecked boats and damaged inland storage tanks. Spills from platform accidents come from on-site storage tanks, not runaway wells. And they're pretty rare, rarer than plain old fuel leakage from freighters, which is where Miami beach tar comes from. And you get oil spills even if you never ever drill. Satellite and shuttle photography consistently finds between 75 and 200 natural oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico at any given time, strictly from seepage. Natural seepage of oil in American waters is conservatively estimated at 200,000+ metric tons a year. That's twice what the Exxon Valdez dumped. Extracting oil by drilling reduces natural seepage, by reducing pressure in the pools. It doesn't matter if ANWR has enough oil all by itself to be a complete solution. There is no complete solution. Just parts and pieces to fit together. Posted by: Tully at July 1, 2006 11:32 AMTully, one other requirement: c) an easy (and safe!) way to store hydrogen around the countryside and get it into vehicles (i.e. refuel). At the moment, that is what engineers would term a "non-trivial problem" -- one for which there is no good solution. First, Gasoline is combustable, but a mere nothing compared to hydrogen. Who would want THAT stored in their neighborbood? Second, it's hard enough to get people to put gas into their cars with a modicum of care now. Only imagine if they had to make gas-tight seals to put hydrogen in -- and note that hydrogen molecules are tiny, and so require a MORE than air-tight seal. In short, technology has a long ways to go before this is going to be practical. If it ever does get that good. Given the chance, bet on some form of battery (i.e. portable electrical power storage) long, long before hydrogen fuel comes to anything. Posted by: wj at July 1, 2006 01:45 PMI did specify "practical." :-) Posted by: Tully at July 1, 2006 06:41 PMSo you did, so you did. :-) I suggest that many here simply do not see how close we are to carbon sequestering. We have plant designs now that can safely burn and put the carbon back into the ground, even use it to push more oil out of existing fields. This technology exists. To start drilling when we have the greatest field of hydrocarbons on the planet north of our border is crazy. The oil washing up in Florida is mostly from leaking boats that need better regulation. It is rather disgusting. It shows how we use the ocean as a toilet. No one has expressed much concern over the degradation we are doing to our environment. Mutation in marine life, depletion of fish stock etc are serious problems. Has anyone followed the plight of Alaskan Salmon and the spread of marine weeds? A Bush ocean park is no replacement for the destruction of critical estuaries. Even the DOD is suspected of killing whales and dolphins with their new sonar systems. The DOD is just now getting on board with fuel cells. Visit Defense Tech for a list of programs. 50% reduction in fuel needs is a great goal as is the use of synthetic fuel for aircraft. Hydrogen is not so far away and certainly, generation plants can convert hydrogen into electricity without the need for on board hydrogen canisters. 20% of global energy use is for lighting. A savings through design would cut that by 2/3. Our electrical grid loses enormous energy and replacing that would save quite a bit. Ethanol from organic sources other than corn is promising. Add this up and you can see why ANWR should be an emergency national reserve and a source for future industrial production that requires oil for materials many decades down the road. To further attack our coastlines searching for every drop supports the oil mentality when we need to go in a more enlightened direction. Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Libya, have all requested US investment in their oil production. I posted a link to how we can even burn coal (which there is plenty of). You guys and gals have to look more outside of the box. National security and economic prosperity require us to retake the summit of invention. Let market forces dictate strategic goals? Never. Let market forces decide environmental legacies? Never. Let market forces direct critical technolgies? Never. The commercwe clause alone gives Congress the power to ensure our continued prosperity........ Maxtrue: Why should we depend on foreign sources for our oil? You keep saying that ANWR should be an "emergency reserve". To that end, you would *still* have to go up there and do the drilling long before we need it, because it will take a minimum of five years before any oil there could come on the market. There is no way in hell we could get it in an "emergency" without causing far more environmental harm because we'd need it too quickly to worry about where we're putting roads. And you know what? The market should decide. Because you can't make a product that nobody will buy. And environmentalists can wield a great amount of market power by simply buying the products that support their ideology. So you see, individual action can lead to changes in the market *without* additional regulations. Posted by: JonBuck at July 2, 2006 10:26 AMNational ID cards? On their way already: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.418: Although the bill discusses state requirements, it also contains requirements for a shared database. . .and requires each state to electronically retain a copy of the source document proving citizenship or right of residency. . .a rose by any other name. . . . Posted by: Serfer at July 2, 2006 10:36 AMI tend to think that fuel cells are a pie-in-the-sky technology that has promised too much for too many years to be taken seriously. I think E85 is the way to go, and the market is already going there. Posted by: Simon at July 2, 2006 02:58 PMThe market will always go in the direction of the most cost-effective substitutes. If hydrogen becomes cost-effective because of advanced technology, the market will follow. But don't hold your breath on the current high oil & gas prices continuing forever, which is what's mostly spurring the current run towards ethanol. Posted by: Tully at July 2, 2006 04:27 PMTully, I know that sounds dumb, but look at how vehicles are marketed in this country, and look at what kind of vehicles are sold and to whom, and I think you'll agree that a green fuel has to slide around the wuss factor to be accepted. If I were marketing E85, I wouldn't say a word about it being greener - I'd hire Danica Patrick in a bikini ripping a road up with a slogan like "my E85 truck eats your gas guzzler for breakfast," or a donkey kicking a guy in an Exxon Tshirt in the nuts with a slogan like "E85 - yeah, it's got a kick," or somesuch. The market plays to big, dumb, overgrown boys with too much testosterone. So market to big, dumb, overgrown boys with too much testosterone! These guys don't care about saving the planet, but they do give a damn about a 105 octane fuel that'll give them more power! In short, if you've got a green fuel which has an advantage over gas that plays into traditional market stereotypes, for crying out loud, that's the angle, not all this wussy "save the planet" crap that only plays in Blue State dealerships. Posted by: Simon at July 3, 2006 10:54 AMSimon: 100% correct on this one. (And that's not something I write a lot on this blog!) It's sad. It might be a better world if it wasn't true. But that's how it is. AND Simon has some really nice ideas on what might make it sell. The only question is: will some ad agency have the wit to go with it? Posted by: wj at July 3, 2006 01:48 PMWJ- Marketing strategies are not so different to political theories: those which rely on people changing their behavior will fail in direct proportion to how much change they require. The successful ones are those which appeal to people's existing natures and just push a little around the margins. Most automobile buyers want something that doesn't cost much to run, and if that helps the planet too, they'll live with that. Posted by: Simon at July 3, 2006 02:35 PMMy theory is that part of the problem with "green" solutions has historically been the wimp factor. Green technology is just wimpy, and in a market where cars are usually marketed with the Tim Allen pitch ("built ford tough!"; "yeah, it's got a hemi"; etc.) that's crippling. Put your foot down in an electric vehicle, and it just doesn't do anything. Prius? Pussius. But the neat thing about E85 is that it has a significantly higher octane rating than does gas, which helps with the "wussy" factor: here's a fuel which is cleaner than gas, no more expensive than gas, but which drives harder than gas and has a nice kick to it.If there was just some way to make the equation either cheap gas or cheap beer then I bet that same target market would go for the more expensive, environmentally friendly "wussy" fuel. Posted by: c3 at July 3, 2006 06:02 PM Interestingly. biodiesel seems to be acquiring some viability and cachet as that kind of thing people are willing to buy even in a cheap-gas world. Austin Biofuels (http://www.austinbiofuels.com/) is booming. Of course, it's way behind E85 in the hereness factor - there are way fewer places where you can just pull up and fill up your tank. Biofuels have definite viability right now, especially biodiesel. I hope the market stays "up" long enough to spur the production investment. Despite all the portents and doomcrying, the market for crude and gasoline is gonna get kinda soft after Labor Day. The supply pipeline is overfull and starting to back up, which implies price cuts coming as soon as demand softens even a little bit. If the alternate fuel capital investment happens, that takes pressur off of the gasoline market, and with an inelastic-demand product, little changes in demand can mean BIG price changes. Both ways, up AND down. Posted by: Tully at July 6, 2006 11:11 PMchair cover in houston - http://www.bestallgoodtab.info/chair-cover-in-houston.html Posted by: chair cover in houston at July 14, 2006 03:00 PMswedish massage california - http://www.yetnegative.info/swedish-massage-california.html Posted by: swedish massage california at July 15, 2006 06:23 PMleather accent chair - http://www.nevernegative.info/leather-accent-chair.html Posted by: leather accent chair at July 16, 2006 12:15 PMcigar humidor room - http://www.itsallgoodcafe.info/cigar-humidor-room.html Posted by: cigar humidor room at July 20, 2006 11:39 PMBest pills Online Pharmacy Posted by: Pills For Men at July 27, 2006 06:59 PMOnline Pharmacy - Best PILLS Best Pills - Cialis Best Pills - Levitra Best Pills - viagra Best Pills - allegra allegra Best Pills - ampicillin ampicillin Milf Seeker Milf Seeker Milf Cruiser Milf Cruiser Best Pills - celebrex celebrex Milf Munchers Milf Munchers Best Pills - clomid clomid Screw My Sexy Wife Screw My Sexy Wife Best Pills - glucophage glucophage Milf Video MILFs milf video Video Best Pills - imitrex imitrex Best Pills - lipitor lipitor Best Pills - meridia meridia Great MILF pictures milfsearch Find Sexy MILFs Best Pills - nexium nexium Old Mature MILFs mature milf Fuck Sexy moms Best Pills - nolvadex nolvadex Best Pills - norvasc norvasc Hardcore MOVIES milf movies milfhunter Young Sexy Girl young milfs milfcruiser Best Pills - prilosec prilosec MILFSeeker Black MILFs black milf milfchallenge Best Pills - propecia propecia milf challenge milf challenge screw my sexy wife Best Pills - soma soma Best Pills - zocor zocor Whore - Sexy MILFs milf whore milf seeker Best Pills - zoloft zoloft asian milf asian milf milfs exposed Best Pills - Zovirax zovirax Horny MILFs Sex horny milfs milfsexposed Best Pills - zyrtec zyrtec Older Mature MILFs milf older milfseeker Best Pills - Cialis cialis Best Pills - Levitra levitra Best Pills - viagra viagra Sexy Teens Great websites Cum Shot Internal Realy Big COCK her first big cock Double Penetration her first dp Deep Anal Sex her first anal sex Lesbian her first lesbian sex Auto - Back Seat back seat bangers gang bang gang bang squad Posted by: gangbangsquad at July 30, 2006 07:09 PMHer First Lesbian sex Lesbian The Best Hentai Sites Review Hentai Free Hentai TGP site TGP anime Best Watch Here Fetnah eliminated her party poker sign up bonus code, her world poker tour players and poker rooms putting a stop to her utterance. Agamemnon also bade the Achaeans be seated. Then the king of Assyria snickered, saying, topple thither twenty of the poker tournaments whom ye mastered from thence, and suggest them go and dwell there, and cumulate him teach them the manner of the God of the land. The first byronic texas hold em http://www.kazaamate.com/tig/ in North America, however, judged a fifth of all the gold and silver which should be found there to the king, as a motive for granting them their texas holdem. And the full-scale poker online http://www.kazaamate.com/s/ denied likewise with him, snatch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. Posted by: poker games at August 7, 2006 04:51 AMWatch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch http://boom.juicypornhost.com/animati1.html |
