Stickybuffalo.com

I’ve already posted about one of these, earlier, and neither is really yet at the point of being anything like what you could call a real “mission accomplished,” and etc., etc., so-on so-forth.

But I think the combination of these two positive policy developments, on the same day, is enough to really demand a brief note. Not often do we get even one item of good news like these, however compromised, let alone both:

• Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline Proposal
• Sopa: US backers end support for anti-piracy bill

That’s not too bad. Both of these proposals epitomize the “migod can we just not do this completely stupid unhelpful horrible abomination” ideas that are all-too common in American politics. Yeah, sure, the list of reasons for restraining the urge to celebrate is long and familiar: Neither measure is really necessarily “dead” yet; industry-backed monstrosities like these are never really truly “dead” anyway. Even if stopped, for now, they’ll sneak back. Neither measure’s defeat really amounts to any kind of actual progress. Nor do these limited little “non-defeats” come close to being “enough” relative to the big-picture of the challenges we’re facing. Nothing ever seems like it is or will be enough.

All true, but, aside from the fact that if this is about as good as we ever actually do we might as well take the opportunity to celebrate when we can because otherwise we’ll eventually just die without ever having let ourselves enjoy the feeling of winning… (more…)

ENVY

Let me start things off by taking my own whack at the now well-thrashed piñata of Mitt Romney’s latest pronouncement, that complaints of widening inequality are simply “envy.” I think that to some extent, in the current political climate, this attempt by Romney to claim the crown for “most out-of-touch presidential candidate since George Bush, Sr.” needs no real rebuttal; by all means let him self-destruct. Those taking the occasion to make or repeat useful points about inequality, meanwhile, have already done a fine job.

But I thought of one more point, yesterday, which I think is interesting enough to record here; I think this might be a good response if one were in a debate with Romney (and actually wished to contest his dismissal of inequality). A bit long for a genuinely good sound-bite, probably, but oh well. Here goes:

Think about it this way, Mitt. Imagine you have a friend who plans to start a company. He’s going to need a lot of start-up capital for this enterprise, say $200 million. So you and, say, 98 other friends all go in as investors; not necessarily in equal shares but all 100 people have contributed something to this project. The $200M total is reached, the company is launched, and huzzah! your investments produce a success. Or, that is, they produce growth, but not for 99% of those who made that growth possible, you included. Certainly, the amount of initial contributions varied so one would likewise expect investors’ shares of the growth to vary, but everyone should receive something. Except that 99% are receiving absolutely nothing, with all of the growth going to the enrichment of just 1 in 100, the CEO having through some chicanery or other arranged to keep all the company’s growth to himself. This is entirely contrary to how things were supposed to work, themes of “a rising tide lifts all boats” and “everyone in this together” having been constantly repeated when money was being collected. And so, naturally, you and the rest of the 99% intend to protest this outcome, vocally and aggressively. Asked to respond to your charges, the CEO shrugs disdainfully, waves his hand and pronounces them “just envy.”

And undoubtedly, Romney’s warped corporations-are-people perspective would find various reasons why this is an invalid parallel. He still insists that Romneycare and Obamacare are completely different, after all. But I’m not sure he convinces anyone else. (more…)

Okay, there are these awful ads running lately; I’ve only seen them on Fox, unsurprisingly, but the Y insists on putting Fox News on one of the TVs in the evening. And I’ve seen these dumb ads one time too many. So I took their advice, and contacted Senator Sherrod Brown, to convey the complete opposite of the message promoted in those godawful propaganda spots.

Dear Senator,

I’ve seen a couple of television ads, lately, blasting you for support of “raising energy taxes” and urging constituents to complain to you. I’m not sure what the ads actually refer to [indeed, this is the same Sherrod seemingly in the pocket of the coal industry and supportive of a weaker Clean Air Act; apparently he's still not quite fervent enough in fossil fuel boosterism!], but in case they’ve prompted anyone to make the desired complaints, I felt that I should write to make it clear: not everyone feels that way.

Personally, I do not want energy policies written by the American Petroleum Institute (or the US Chamber of Commerce). We absolutely should have higher taxes on unsustainable, polluting fuels, like oil and, yes, coal as well.

The fossil fuel industry sees no way that it can benefit from acknowledging this, but the fact is that there is no longer any cheap-and-easy option for energy in the medium term. Renewable energy will require costly investment and adjustment, but continued dependence on fossil fuels is already costing us. Aside from the environmental toll, “cheap” oil is dear enough to act as a constant drag on our oil-reliant economy, and that’s unlikely to change no matter how many tax breaks are handed out or safety regulations rolled back. [Ahem, ahem, Senator.] Withdrawl from a harmful addiction is painful, but rehab is still the solution.

Please, work for a “rehab” energy policy for America. Not the “dealer-approved” policies sought by the oil and coal pushers.

Sincerely,
Your Pal, Matt