Happy Birthday to Stu Tate, 51. His cup of coffee was in 1989, age 27. He had 18 remaining professional innings (in AAA in 1991). Pitching is brutal.
Good stuff:
1. Dan Hopkins on the Latino vote.
2. David Roberts is incredibly sensible about the nuclear (power) debate.
3. Nicole Flatow talks to a retired federal judge about the limitations of the judicial check on intelligence gathering.
4. And, off topic, but: Peter Biskind has tapes of (an aging) Orson Welles in conversation. Good fun.
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Monday, June 17, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to Jamie Bamber, 40.
Right to the good stuff...yeah, last night was the first west coast night game of the season, and so there goes my sleep schedule for a while. Not that I'm complaining about staying up to watch Bumgarner shut out the Dodgers, mind you. Uh...yeah, the good stuff:
1. David Roberts on fracking and renewables. Interesting.
2. Good Stu Rothenberg item on House 2014. I think I agree down the line with him on this one.
3. The next Fed Chair? Neil Irwin handicaps the race and establishes Janet Yellen as the solid favorite. I'm just looking forward to hearing about the runaway inflation she's already responsible for.
4. Ezra Klein explains insurance premiums under ACA.
5. What's North Korea up to? It's probably about their domestic politics -- which we don't know too much about. North Korea scholar Stephan Haggard, via the Monkey Cage.
6. And a nice Opening Day (more or less) item: who represents Crash Davis? From Abby Livingston.
Right to the good stuff...yeah, last night was the first west coast night game of the season, and so there goes my sleep schedule for a while. Not that I'm complaining about staying up to watch Bumgarner shut out the Dodgers, mind you. Uh...yeah, the good stuff:
1. David Roberts on fracking and renewables. Interesting.
2. Good Stu Rothenberg item on House 2014. I think I agree down the line with him on this one.
3. The next Fed Chair? Neil Irwin handicaps the race and establishes Janet Yellen as the solid favorite. I'm just looking forward to hearing about the runaway inflation she's already responsible for.
4. Ezra Klein explains insurance premiums under ACA.
5. What's North Korea up to? It's probably about their domestic politics -- which we don't know too much about. North Korea scholar Stephan Haggard, via the Monkey Cage.
6. And a nice Opening Day (more or less) item: who represents Crash Davis? From Abby Livingston.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
What Mattered This Week?
Not much question here, right? Libya and Japan. Beyond that, well, the other events in the Middle East.
By the way...if I had to guess -- and it's just a guess, nothing more -- I'd guess that Libya winds up a lot less important than this week's headlines would indicate. Not that it isn't important, but I just think it might be on the overhyped side.
For a second guess, I'm very much on the side of those who suspect that (whatever the merits) the US nuclear power industry is now dead for another generation.
What else? I don't know that it mattered a lot, but the House vote on leaving Afghanistan was certainly interesting. There was also a three week delay for government shutdown...I'm pretty confident that the House vote on NPR goes in the "didn't matter" category.
OK, that's what I have. What do you think mattered this week?
By the way...if I had to guess -- and it's just a guess, nothing more -- I'd guess that Libya winds up a lot less important than this week's headlines would indicate. Not that it isn't important, but I just think it might be on the overhyped side.
For a second guess, I'm very much on the side of those who suspect that (whatever the merits) the US nuclear power industry is now dead for another generation.
What else? I don't know that it mattered a lot, but the House vote on leaving Afghanistan was certainly interesting. There was also a three week delay for government shutdown...I'm pretty confident that the House vote on NPR goes in the "didn't matter" category.
OK, that's what I have. What do you think mattered this week?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Summer Blockbuster: Summit 2?
As I said in my speech reaction post, I don't think the tepid endorsement of the bill formerly known as energy/climate really matters very much: what matters is what comes next. And I can't see any real downside for the president if he chooses to invite everyone back to Blair House for another summit.
First of all, the Republicans might refuse. That would be a victory for the president.
Second, it's possible that some Republicans might actually show up looking to make a deal. Obviously, that's a victory for the president.
Third, and most likely, the Republicans would repeat their health care performance: they would show up with focus-group-tested talking points that wouldn't stand up very well to the president's knowledge of the subject, especially since he's the one who gets to control the microphone (and, yes, Obama should insist on the same format as the health care summit, take it or leave it -- again, what are they going to do?).
Now, mostly the effects of a summit would be minor. It would probably make Democrats feel good, and I suspect would make for some rather uncomfortable moments for Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and other Republicans who have at times claimed that they wanted a bill -- which, again, would make Democrats feel good. I don't think that spin is all that important, but I do think that (for whatever incremental amount it's worth) that Obama is much better off if everyone is talking about a bill than if they're talking about the oil spill.
Mostly, however, it would be worthwhile as a signal that Obama and the Democrats are really serious about getting a bill this year. It is true that we're not at an analogous stage in the process in terms of the parliamentary situation, but I think we are at a similar stage in terms of the question of whether the thing is really going forward or not. Sending a strong, unambiguous signal that something is going to pass could, I think, matter a bit. Right now, I think most Democrats in the Senate probably believe there's a fair chance they can duck the issue entirely. Forcing the issue will force them off the fence, and push them to make whatever deals they need to make to vote for the bill. To the extent that downgrading or removing climate from the bill means that Republicans might vote for it, the same is true for them.
That's all if there's a real chance for a bill, and assuming that Obama wants one. If not -- if he'd rather have the issue -- it sure seems to me that a summit works, too. Again, I'm really not seeing a down side (anyone? explain it to me in comments). I don't know if that's where the administration is headed, but the president is using the same rhetoric about accepting good Republican ideas that he used for health care, and so maybe that's where they're headed. If so: good choice.
First of all, the Republicans might refuse. That would be a victory for the president.
Second, it's possible that some Republicans might actually show up looking to make a deal. Obviously, that's a victory for the president.
Third, and most likely, the Republicans would repeat their health care performance: they would show up with focus-group-tested talking points that wouldn't stand up very well to the president's knowledge of the subject, especially since he's the one who gets to control the microphone (and, yes, Obama should insist on the same format as the health care summit, take it or leave it -- again, what are they going to do?).
Now, mostly the effects of a summit would be minor. It would probably make Democrats feel good, and I suspect would make for some rather uncomfortable moments for Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and other Republicans who have at times claimed that they wanted a bill -- which, again, would make Democrats feel good. I don't think that spin is all that important, but I do think that (for whatever incremental amount it's worth) that Obama is much better off if everyone is talking about a bill than if they're talking about the oil spill.
Mostly, however, it would be worthwhile as a signal that Obama and the Democrats are really serious about getting a bill this year. It is true that we're not at an analogous stage in the process in terms of the parliamentary situation, but I think we are at a similar stage in terms of the question of whether the thing is really going forward or not. Sending a strong, unambiguous signal that something is going to pass could, I think, matter a bit. Right now, I think most Democrats in the Senate probably believe there's a fair chance they can duck the issue entirely. Forcing the issue will force them off the fence, and push them to make whatever deals they need to make to vote for the bill. To the extent that downgrading or removing climate from the bill means that Republicans might vote for it, the same is true for them.
That's all if there's a real chance for a bill, and assuming that Obama wants one. If not -- if he'd rather have the issue -- it sure seems to me that a summit works, too. Again, I'm really not seeing a down side (anyone? explain it to me in comments). I don't know if that's where the administration is headed, but the president is using the same rhetoric about accepting good Republican ideas that he used for health care, and so maybe that's where they're headed. If so: good choice.
Energy Speech
OK, first of all, I only listened to it on the radio. I can report that my impressions were about the same as (from what I can tell) everyone else's, so I don't think a lot was lost in translation. I'll do bullet points:
1. I think Andrew Sprung got it just about right. On the oil spill, it was adequate; on the bill formerly known as energy/climate, it was a dud, although mostly in a forgettable sense, not in a self-damaging sense.
2. And Sprung is right: outside of (or at least ever since) the ill-fated run for the House of Representatives many years ago, "Obama only fights for what he thinks he can get."
3. I have a sense that for all his reputation, Barack Obama has a history of needing a few passes at a new format before he really nails it. I'm thinking about the (presidential nomination) debates, his speeches to the Joint Session of Congress, and perhaps presidential press conferences. An obvious counterexample would be Democratic National Convention speeches...don't know if that's really a different format than other large political rally televised set pieces, and how much experience if any he had with those before the 2004 address.
4. To repeat what I and other political scientists said before the health care speech last year -- there's a lot less going on here than meets the eye. These speeches don't really matter very much. He's fighting a spin war on the oil spill, and to the extent that matters this is part of a series of markers he's laying down to convince opinion leaders open to convincing that he and the federal government are doing a good job. On the energy/climate bill...what matters more than anything he said is what happens next (and I'll do a follow-up item on that).
5. Worth reading anyway: Jonathan Chait, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum.
6. Not actually relevant, but needs to be said anyway: the Schoolhouse Rock "Energy Blues" is two or three orders of magnitude worse than, really, any other song in the entire original run of the series.
1. I think Andrew Sprung got it just about right. On the oil spill, it was adequate; on the bill formerly known as energy/climate, it was a dud, although mostly in a forgettable sense, not in a self-damaging sense.
2. And Sprung is right: outside of (or at least ever since) the ill-fated run for the House of Representatives many years ago, "Obama only fights for what he thinks he can get."
3. I have a sense that for all his reputation, Barack Obama has a history of needing a few passes at a new format before he really nails it. I'm thinking about the (presidential nomination) debates, his speeches to the Joint Session of Congress, and perhaps presidential press conferences. An obvious counterexample would be Democratic National Convention speeches...don't know if that's really a different format than other large political rally televised set pieces, and how much experience if any he had with those before the 2004 address.
4. To repeat what I and other political scientists said before the health care speech last year -- there's a lot less going on here than meets the eye. These speeches don't really matter very much. He's fighting a spin war on the oil spill, and to the extent that matters this is part of a series of markers he's laying down to convince opinion leaders open to convincing that he and the federal government are doing a good job. On the energy/climate bill...what matters more than anything he said is what happens next (and I'll do a follow-up item on that).
5. Worth reading anyway: Jonathan Chait, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum.
6. Not actually relevant, but needs to be said anyway: the Schoolhouse Rock "Energy Blues" is two or three orders of magnitude worse than, really, any other song in the entire original run of the series.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Against Overreaction
(Updated Below)
I'm going to take issue with Joshua Green's complaint about the climate/energy bill and recent disasters in the Gulf of Mexico and West Virginia:
I'm not against using such things (cold days, oil spills) to try to gain rhetorical advantage; that's what pols are going to do, not to mention partisan hacks who host talk shows. But really, do we have to criticize people for acting like grownups?
If the climate/energy bill was a good idea last month, it's a good idea now. If it was a bad idea last month, it's a bad idea now. The substance of the issue has not changed, and so there's no reason to expect Senators to change their views.
(Update: The general consensus from comments is that I'm goofy on this one. I'm not going to concede, but I do recommend that everyone look at the comments -- perhaps they're right!).
I'm going to take issue with Joshua Green's complaint about the climate/energy bill and recent disasters in the Gulf of Mexico and West Virginia:
In Washington, environmental disasters come with a silver lining...Historically speaking, then, a disaster like the one unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico would seem tailor-made to jump start a legislative process that has broken down amid partisan recriminations. And that certainly describes Washington. For months, a group of senators -- Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham, and Independent Joe Lieberman -- worked to craft an energy and climate bill that fell apart last week before it could even be introduced. Then came the Deepwater Horizon oil rig collapse. This should have prompted the Senate to look anew at the energy bill, which steers the country toward a cleaner, safer energy future (emphasis added).Putting aside whether the bill is or is not a good idea in the first place: no, the oil spill and the mining disaster should not have prompted the Senate to look anew at the energy bill. It's not as if anyone believed that oil spills were impossible, let alone that mining accidents were impossible. So these things really don't, or at least shouldn't, change the debate. It's as foolish to change your mind about oil after this spill as it is to change your mind about climate change because it snowed.
I'm not against using such things (cold days, oil spills) to try to gain rhetorical advantage; that's what pols are going to do, not to mention partisan hacks who host talk shows. But really, do we have to criticize people for acting like grownups?
If the climate/energy bill was a good idea last month, it's a good idea now. If it was a bad idea last month, it's a bad idea now. The substance of the issue has not changed, and so there's no reason to expect Senators to change their views.
(Update: The general consensus from comments is that I'm goofy on this one. I'm not going to concede, but I do recommend that everyone look at the comments -- perhaps they're right!).
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Reconciliation Update and Questions
Ezra Klein's reporting agrees with the logic that I set out after the Finance Committee votes on public option amendments yesterday: it's very unlikely that we'll see the Democrats use reconciliation for health care this year.
Two questions I'd have would be:
1. If a bill passes this year without any public option, might Democrats try to add one through reconciliation next year? I believe that a pure public option bill would probably be viable through reconciliation, although again I don't know that the votes are there. It's also possible that there might be more votes for public option after the 2010 elections, even if Democrats lose a couple of seats overall (suppose that Lincoln, Bennett, and Dodd lose, but that the new Republic from Connecticut winds up supporting public option, while the Democrats pick up new seats and public option votes in Ohio and New Hampshire).
2. How likely is it that cap-and-trade winds up moving through reconciliation next year? I'm no expert on that bill, but the politics of it, from what I can see, are slightly better for bipartisanship but a lot worse for beating a filibuster -- all Democrats have an interest in having health care pass in some form, but that's just not going to be the case with a climate change bill.
Two questions I'd have would be:
1. If a bill passes this year without any public option, might Democrats try to add one through reconciliation next year? I believe that a pure public option bill would probably be viable through reconciliation, although again I don't know that the votes are there. It's also possible that there might be more votes for public option after the 2010 elections, even if Democrats lose a couple of seats overall (suppose that Lincoln, Bennett, and Dodd lose, but that the new Republic from Connecticut winds up supporting public option, while the Democrats pick up new seats and public option votes in Ohio and New Hampshire).
2. How likely is it that cap-and-trade winds up moving through reconciliation next year? I'm no expert on that bill, but the politics of it, from what I can see, are slightly better for bipartisanship but a lot worse for beating a filibuster -- all Democrats have an interest in having health care pass in some form, but that's just not going to be the case with a climate change bill.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Dogs, Not Barking
Plenty of new readers, so I'll add the explanation that this is a continuing item about stories that haven't been in the news, and are therefore interesting.
But first, an update. The last dogs, not barking had an item about the surprising lack of Bush administration scandals uncovered so far this year. That was a couple weeks before this LA Times story about an investigation into possible corruption in the Bush Interior Department. Hey, I'm not predicting that the dogs will stay silent! The other two items that time (Palin's other shoe not dropping and Biden's test not occurring) are still safe, for now.
On to the new items:
1. There's a lot of buzz about 1994 and Democratic disaster. What hasn't happened so far are retirements. While a bunch of Republican Senators are retiring, so far the Democrats who are leaving the House are doing so in order to move up: Sestak in Pennsylvania, Hodes in New Hampshire, Abercrombie in Hawaii, Melancon in Louisiana. It's of course still early, but not too early for this to be worth noting.
2. There hasn't been a gas price spike this year.
3. And, running item, still no action on Fairness Doctrine. Hey, when Biden talked about the future agenda yesterday, you think maybe that's what he was talking about? If the Democrats survive the 2010 cycle, then they'll be repealing the Fairness Doctrine once a day and twice on Sundays all through 2011. Bonus dogs, not barking item: I don't think Biden's speech counts as a gaffe, which means he's really gone an awful long time without one.
But first, an update. The last dogs, not barking had an item about the surprising lack of Bush administration scandals uncovered so far this year. That was a couple weeks before this LA Times story about an investigation into possible corruption in the Bush Interior Department. Hey, I'm not predicting that the dogs will stay silent! The other two items that time (Palin's other shoe not dropping and Biden's test not occurring) are still safe, for now.
On to the new items:
1. There's a lot of buzz about 1994 and Democratic disaster. What hasn't happened so far are retirements. While a bunch of Republican Senators are retiring, so far the Democrats who are leaving the House are doing so in order to move up: Sestak in Pennsylvania, Hodes in New Hampshire, Abercrombie in Hawaii, Melancon in Louisiana. It's of course still early, but not too early for this to be worth noting.
2. There hasn't been a gas price spike this year.
3. And, running item, still no action on Fairness Doctrine. Hey, when Biden talked about the future agenda yesterday, you think maybe that's what he was talking about? If the Democrats survive the 2010 cycle, then they'll be repealing the Fairness Doctrine once a day and twice on Sundays all through 2011. Bonus dogs, not barking item: I don't think Biden's speech counts as a gaffe, which means he's really gone an awful long time without one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
