Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Another excellent article on Energy Security and Regulation! Enjoy!
Energy Security and the Regulation Imperative in a New Economic Era
Did the economic crisis stabilize oil prices? What is the future of energy security? Has China bypassed the United States in the green energy revolution? How will the global community approach the "fourth corridor" pipeline in relation to Iranian power and Russian resurgence?
Dr. Daniel Fine, research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, addressed a diverse set of energy-related questions at The Fletcher School on September 15. The presentation was part of the International Security Studies Program Global Speaker Series.
Dr. Fine indicated that Saudi Arabia views the current price of oil, roughly $70-75 per barrel, as reflecting a price that is both fair and natural. The 2007-2008 price spike, which increased the per barrel price 220% over its 2005 level, was accompanied by a mere 2.5% increase in consumption. According to Dr. Fine, this undermines the oft-cited argument that consumption spikes drive price increases.
The real story of runaway oil prices, Dr. Fine said, lies in the enormous amount of available credit in the 2007-2008, which allowed speculators to buy and hold massive reserves, disturbing traditional forces of supply and demand. Combined with a global finance system that neglected deposits and encouraged rampant buying and a lack of regulation, this perfect storm brought the financial world to its knees in September 2008.
As the global economy shows signs of recovery, Dr. Fine urged the audience to ignore speculators. So-called "geopolitical analysts" on major news shows, he said, are often self-interested frauds with no actual training in geopolitics, serving only to promote a product (oil, gas, or energy) and make faulty predictions.
In the framework of energy security, Dr. Fine cited President Obama's speeches in Cairo and on Wall Street, as evidence of the administration's movement away from hard power "oil politics" and toward Joseph Nye's conception of soft power. Dr. Fine cited President Obama's Cairo speech as the backbone of a new regional policy in which the United States will move away from energy independence and toward energy interdependence, working alongside the global community and with regulators to ensure transparency.
The new geopolitics, Dr. Fine noted, focus on the location of and environment that surrounds oil supplies. He indicated that this symbolizes a shift from "great salesmanship" to true political geography with an associated acknowledgement of the reality of sector specific risk. In this context, Dr. Fine discussed the "fourth corridor" pipeline route, popularly known as Nabucco, which will stretch across the Caspian Sea to Austria. Turkey's attempts to claim 15% of the overall revenue would, if successful, render the proposed pipeline uneconomic, while the tumult in Georgia poses enormous political risk to the project. Russia, which holds a virtual monopoly on European natural gas supply and is dabbling anew in great power politics, is vehemently opposed to Nabucco. This is one of the reasons, Dr. Fine stressed, that Russia does not want to see regime change in Iran; the current anti-Western hard line ensures Iran's illegitimacy in the West and thus prevents Iranian oil sales to Western powers.
Dr. Fine also touched on China and its crucial coal factor. China will inevitability decline the carbon emissions cap to be proposed at COP15, and India, along with other developing powers, will follow suit in rejecting emissions caps. But Dr. Fine argued that China's emphasis on carbon capture synchronization, or CCS, demonstrates its relative advantage over the West in certain green energy issues.
Dr. Fine concluded by citing President Obama's recent hard-line regulation speech on Wall Street as an outline of future policy. If regulation fails, Dr. Fine indicated it is likely that a pricing bubble will return in concert with a buying surge. But with regulation, and with stringent enforcement by both the U.S. and Europe, a permanent cap on oil prices can be established that will maintain transparency and coincide with the fair and natural price.
Pity the poor GOP - who just can't manage to be funny. They can do purple-in-the-face-spittle-emitting rage, but not humor. Witness their April Fool video, with special guest Paul Hodes:
I want one of them low-emissions unicorns, though - mine is just so gassy. This is an open thread.
Schadenfreude is not part of my DNA, unless we're playing Pictionary, but what happens next for the Republicans? Once all the hot air is out of the balloon, somebody has to pay...who's first?
I'm guessing Boehner is first, with that little daschund Cantor eager to fill those size fours.
I can't remember a time when political fortunes turned so quickly...
In less than 24 hours, Republicans are starting to back pedal on their initial calls to repeal the health care legislation.
TPM is reporting that Mitch Mcconnell today is calling for "Repeal and replace".
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c...
Is it because the polls are showing that people are supporting health care reform, now that they know what actually is in the legislation - as opposed to the misinformation that Republicans were previously dishing?
And will Kelly Ayotte jump on the repeal and replace bandwagon as quickly as she jumped on the repeal bandwagon?
And will anyone in the trad med village point out the silliness of Mcconnell calling for "repeal and replace", as oposed to the process used by congress for over two centuries known as "amend"?
It seems that many of those who are regular guests of this space are committed to a worldview based on some degree of reason and rationality.
That's a handy thing if the "Covert Alarm Locator Apparatus" in your Isaac Daniel® Compass Global 1000 GPS sneakers should happen to fail and you need to find your way back to where the rest of us are; sadly, not all voters are equipped with such a helpful worldview.
Luckily for them, there are lots of conservative "mouth organs" ready to fill the "information gap".
They send out lots of emails every day, spreading their Word, and as a public service I receive several of them; this to help keep track of just what's out there, exactly.
If you ever wondered why otherwise normal people believe some of the craziest things about "Obama's Secret Death Care And National Virgin Sacrifice Program", have a look at some of the things I get every single day, and it might all make a bit more sense.
LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
Gentle Reader, you have been officially...warned.
With that in mind, if you take offense when confronted with language strong enough to knock a fuckin' buzzard off a shitwagon, please stop reading now.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
The vote on CACR28, a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman just took place in the New Hampshire House. The Judiciary Committee's report of Inexpedient to Legislate was upheld by a vote of 201-135.
First, Rep Bates (R-Windham) tried to have the bill "special ordered" until March 17, after many towns have town meeting or SB-2 votes. This is Bates' and other Republican's initiative to drum up support for a "referendum" type vote on marriage equality. They are hoping to have the out of state money flowing into their coffers as a result of trying to make NH what it is not--a referendum state.
Rep. Bill O'Brien((R-Mont Vernon), after arguing in favor of the special order asked for a roll call. The special order failed 141-191.
When one gets past the vulgarity of Representative Nancy Eliot's (R-Merrimack) diatribe in Judiciary last week, one is left with a thought: It's good this was made public. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and it seems the need to use lies to make one's case is the infection.
As with most things, Elliot's two minutes of fame points to a larger problem with her party. They lie. They lie incessantly and about so many things. The lies are repeated and broadcast in the traditional media without much, if any, analysis or question. Examples: "death panels", socialism=fascism, etc.
Then, of course, in Rovian form, they turn and accuse everyone else of lying. The chair of the state GOP even went so far as to use the ancient grade school taunt "Liar Liar, pants on fire"!" against President Obama.
It's not only about marriage equality, but about something as unsexy as the state budget. Remember the 17.5% increase that was repeated over and over again during the last election? It was a lie.
The House Republican Alliance, a policy group of more "conservative" reps, which Nancy Elliot co-chairs with Representatives Bill O'Brien (R-Mont Vernon) and Bob Mead (R-Mont Vernon) put out a press release with a blatant and inflammatory lie about the Democrats on the House Rules Committee. The Nashua Telegraph called them out on it, just as they've called Elliot out on her lie about the schools. (See Dean's post below.)
Elliot also possibly counted on the fact that what she was saying would be heard only by the representatives and observers in the executive session that day. She was wrong.
In Nascar lingo, the "Silly Season" is the period near the end of the season when the also-ran drivers try to get new rides with the also-ran teams. This traditionally began in September, around the time of the race here in New Hampshire. In recent years, the Silly Season has been happening earlier and earlier.
The NH Republican Party is starting its silly season very early this year. The new legislative session is three weeks old and Daytona is almost a month away. The NH GOP released two very bizarre press releases this week, both triggered by a meeting between Revenue Administration chief Kevin Clougherty and various leading State House Democrats, including Speaker Terie Norelli. Understandably, the Republicans felt excluded, but did they simply choose to invite Clougherty to meet with members of their caucus? No, not really...
This was published as an op-ed in the January 8, 2010 Conway Daily Sun newspaper.
I've had a complaint about the way the text came out in this diary. My computer died just before Christmas, and I'm using my late husband's laptop, which does not have a word processing program in it. I spent half an hour trying to fix the text - to no avail. I'm sorry if it's annoying, but I assure you, it's not intentional.
During last year's NH legislative session, the minority party frequently accused the majority party of wasting time on unimportant issues, instead of focusing on jobs and the economy. They wailed and gnashed their teeth over the time spent on the issue of marriage equality - even though that was an issue of justice and civil rights. In looking over the bills ready to be worked on this year, it seems that the minority party has chosen to actually do exactly what they whined the other guys were doing all last year.
Bob Bestani, in his quest to unseat Carol Shea-Porter, is taking her for task for not interfering with the military justice system. I am sure the other Republicans running for federal office will soon be parroting the same lines about the Navy SEALs court martial.
It is not easy to sort out the facts of the case. The gist of it is that three Navy SEALs are being court martialed for allegedly brutalizing an insurgent named Ahmed Hashim Abed on September 1, 2009. Abed is (interestingly) believed to be the mastermind behind the gruesome execution of 4 Blackwater contractors in September 2004, back when Bush & Cheney were in charge of the war. (If we were fighting an opponent our own size, those 4 non-uniformed combatants would have been sent to our enemy's Gitmo instead.)
At the JJ dinner I had the accidential pleasure of sitting next to June Frazer, a name I had run across a few times in her capacity as LTE-er on behalf of the side of the light.
June in turn recognized my name from BH. As fate would have it, June had a piece ready that was a bit too long for newsprint, so I offered to post it here, where length is never an issue. Here it is in full.
Republican Language
The current journalistic concept of "balance" leads to the misguided practice of accusing the innocent along with the guilty when deploring the behavior being discussed.. A truly unfortunate example of this practice occurred in the December 2 Concord Monitor editorial on former Representative Jim Leach's campaign for civility. The following is a sample: "Civility, especially in Washington, has reached a dismaying low point. Rivals often don't merely disagree, they hate one another. So does a level of partisanship that leads each side [emphasis mine] to fight to defeat the proposals of the other . . . ."
It is a really cockeyed sense of fairness that attributes the extreme negativity, even viciousness, of current Republican behavior and language to Democrats as well. Even the most cursory look at the history of the last three decades and at current events makes clear that the total collapse of civility, not to mention honesty, has been on the side of the GOP and its followers. It is a time for a look at that history and the current manifestations.of its worst tendencies.
Every time I see Jeb Bradley, or Charlie Bass, or Judd Gregg crowing about how the world will end if we pass health care reform, I am reminded of how when they were in charge, they did nothing to address this domestic catastrophe.
All the money in the world for Iraq, and for cutting taxes for the richest, but getting more Americans insured? Not exactly in their priority set.
Every time I see Jeb Bradley, or Charlie Bass, or Judd Gregg crowing about how the world will end if we pass health care reform, I try, in vain, to imagine what President McCain and Vice President Palin would have done to address the millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans.
There's a reason Democrats control every branch of government. The red team forgot about the other 99% of us.
An RNC panel headed by party chairman Michael Steele invited the campaigns to share their views as it considers numerous possible changes to the process the party will use to nominate a candidate to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.
Mike DuHaime, the 2008 campaign manager for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, told the panel that the three early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina should continue to hold contests early in the process, but not necessarily as the first three contests.
"I believe there needs to be greater decision-making authority given to states beyond the early states," said DuHaime, referring to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. "If you win two out of three states, those have been our nominees. With that, 47 other states don't have the same say."
This, after Clinton and Obama battled it out in 2008 all over the map.
Can we just be honest and cut to the chase as to what this is really all about?
A noun, a verb, and 9/11 couldn't even get two thousand more votes in New Hampshire than Ron Paul. And despite their spin, it wasn't for lack of trying.
Today the New Hampshire House did the right thing. Today the New Hampshire Senate failed to. As a result, untold numbers of patients who choose the only avenue that allows them relief from pain and nausea are still criminals.
After a brief debate, the House, by a 240-115 vote, overrode the Governor's veto of HB 648, the medical marijuana bill. The pro arguments were, as usual, bipartisan, reasoned, moving and passionate. The anti arguments were, as usual, largely nonsensical partisan chaff.
One feature of NH legislative debate is that after any member has spoken to a bill, any other member may request that he or she yield to a question. This is done to request clarification, to disagree, to concur, to make additional points, to correct errors of fact, and for many other reasons.
After the debate is over, the Speaker allows two additional speakers, one for the pending motion and one against, in order to make clear exactly what pushing the green button (voting Yes) means. The speakers will almost always make one last brief argument for their side while doing so. (For example, "If you believe, as I believe, that American cheese is a disgusting and degraded substance, adequate perhaps to caulking drafty windows in an emergency, but utterly unworthy of inclusion in the cheese family, and that under no circumstances whatsoever should it be declared the state cheese of New Hampshire, will you please vote Yes by pushing the green button to approve the motion of inexpedient to legislate.") However, as these speakers are technically only making Parliamentary Inquiries, they are not subject to questions.
There has been a lot going on with the debate over health care reform at the federal level. It seems both regular and "Blue Dog" Dems are reaching consensus on the so-called opt-out plan. This would allow states to opt out of the public option by legislative or popular vote.
Brian Beutler at TPM:
A Baucus aide tells me "Senator Baucus will look closely at this proposal, as well as other proposals, and could consider supporting them as part of an overall package as long as it achieved his health care reform goals while getting 60 votes."
On the other side of the party, Howard Dean says, if he were a member of the Senate, he would vote for the proposal, not because it's his ideal public option, but because it would represent real reform.
Nate Silver has this to say about public option "purity"
Some of the usual suspects are out this morning with criticism of Tom Carper's compromise proposal to insert a robust public option into the Democrats' health care bill, but allow states to opt out of it by legislative or popular action. I'm not going to call these people out by name because I consider some of them friends and they're doing good, important, productive work. But this compromise is leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated, such as Chuck Schumer's proposal to have a public insurance option that would be forced to negotiate at private market rates.
Bloomberg reports the results of a Quinnipiac poll that indicate the Republicans are losing more ground with their attempt to blockade this necessary reform.
Months of Republican attacks on President Barack Obama's health-care proposals appear to have hurt the party, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.
The survey found 64 percent of voters disapproving of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their jobs, with 25 percent approving. Also, 53 percent had an unfavorable opinion of the party in general, while 25 percent rated it favorably.
I don't remember seeing the sausage making aspect of legislation so up close and personal before. Was there this much coverage of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy? Or the run up to the invasion of Iraq? (Judith Miller not withstanding)
I posted a similar diary over at dKos yesterday, but it was late and I was tired, and I think I don't need to ramble so much to get to the key point I had. Republicans have an easy way to influence the health care legislation as it passes through Congress and deny Democrats the opportunity to take all the credit for it.
