Obama: Drill, Baby, Drill, and save, nuke, shine and blow
Weaning our nation off of oil and fossil fuels like coal as our main energy source is a four-fer:
1. National security. It will eliminate our reliance on totalitarian, oppressive states that breed terrorists for a necessary commodity.
2. Economy. If you accept peak oil as a future concern, and many serious people now do.. it’s when, not if, then it will help prepare us for a future of tightening supplies and rising costs.
3. Air Quality. It will increase our air quality. No matter how clean we make oil and coal, they will always dirty the air.
4. Climate Change. We just keep spewing carbon into the air, and just keep increasing our chances of major problems. Cutting that down is necessary.
Whether one is Republican or Democrat, conservative, liberal or somewhere else in the spectrum, at least 1 or 2 of these goals should be considered quite worthy of our attention. I believe all four are extremely important, and in fact are quite intertwined.
But how to go about it? As a nation, practically, it seems to me we need to take a multi-faceted, and serious, approach. We need to find market-based incentives to conserve (save) energy use, we need to create market-based incentives to increase our use of alternative sources of energy like nuclear, solar and wind. We need to do these now.
President Obama just recently announced that they will be opening up offshore areas to exploration and drilling.
Is this a solution? As I’ve written before, it is not. Increased oil production will perhaps be 3% in the next 10-20 years. Not near enough to wean us of foreign sources, help the economy or the environment. I also am leery what effect it will have on our coasts.
But, perhaps there are several benefits to this, in conjunction with a huge push for alternative energy sources. One benefit in helping us with the first two points above, the other benefits are political. I still don’t think it’s a great idea, but perhaps there are other calculations in play:
1. Let’s say that we decrease our fossil fuel consumption by 50%, then the 3% increase in production becomes a more substantial portion. Perhaps enough to make a bigger difference in our dependence on foreign oil.
2. It gives ground to Republican and conservative calls for drilling (from McCain and Palin to Bush and others), perhaps both being a political bargaining chip/peace offering to get them on board for pushes for other ways to decrease our dependence on oil.
3. If the Republican and conservative leaders reject the other proposals for renewable energy, or like with healthcare completely stay out of the discussion, then they will, as they did with healthcare, appear unreasonable and uncompromising.
4. Once the areas are opened up, and it is shown that they don’t produce near what we need, the argument is also won.
Like with healthcare, Obama is using Republican and market-based proposals and offering bipartisanship. And I think, as with healthcare, the Republicans and conservative “Tea Party” will reject their own proposals out of hand.
And they will continue to dig their own political graves as a movement.
Andrew Sullivan posted about this today, and linked to several people who were wondering why he didn’t hold this in reserve as a bargaining chip. And then posts another link to someone who thought this was political (as in rising summer gas costs), but, as I wrote an email, this is not just or even much about this summer or holding bargaining chips….
…don’t’ they see it? Are they missing it yet again? Obama is playing the long game. He’s preemptively accepting the Republican approach, then asking the Republicans to come on board for the discussion and legislation. Just like the healthcare debate. And just like the healthcare debate, they will refuse, scream, shout and throw a tantrum. A larger, comprehensive bill that is indistinguishable from moderate Republican solutions from the past will be passed and Republicans will again appear extremist and unreasonable. Then nation will win with a solution, and Obama will win politically. The only losers will again be the Republicans.
Just add this to the list on DADT
The list of arguments against repealing DADT just got even smaller (well, to 0):
Defense against McCarthyism
One of the great things about this nation is a legal system that codifies a guarantee of a fair trial. I always assumed the 6th amendment in the Bill of Rights was pretty clear
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Of course there are interpretations, ruling precedence and jurisprudence that can make it a bit more nuanced than this layperson has a full grasp of, but it seems, at least in principle, that a speedy and public trial, knowing what you are accused of, being able to confront the witnesses against you, allowing you to obtain witness in your favor and have the assistance of counsel, are an excellent basis for which to form a just legal system.
Yet, even given our history and founding documents, Liz Cheney and her ilk (from her “Keep America Safe” organization, Fox News to Kristol) have decided that perhaps instead the 6th amendment and 234 years of American experience don’t matter. She and others have been attacking the lawyers that have defended terrorist suspects. Attacking them in a McCarthyesque manner to brand them with the label of “terrorist” (“the Al Queda 7?”).
Neal Katyal, one of these lawyers, gave an eloquent explanation on Steven Colbert of why this country’s legal system’s foundation is nothing short of “magnificent,” in his words. Of course, Colbert gave a hilarious over-the-top satirical impression of an authoritarian fanatic. Sadly, from Liz Cheney’s performance, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference. A case of life imitating art perhaps as Luban says quite well.
Well, it is good to see that a group of lawyers, including Republican and conservative ones such as Ken Starr and David Rifkin, have come out with a firm and well-spoken defense of these lawyers and an attack on Liz Cheney’s and the “Keep America Safe” cadre’s tactics and views:
The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’s representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre. People come to serve in the Justice Department with a diverse array of prior private clients; that is one of the department’s strengths…
To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit.
Such attacks also undermine the Justice system more broadly. In terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role. Whether one believes in trial by military commission or in federal court, detainees will have access to counsel.
Read the whole thing: Statement on Justice Department Attorney Representation of Guantánamo Detainees – Brookings Institution.
Hat tips (and an excellent read): David Luban at Balkinization
Ordinary Gentlemen talk about marriage
I’m intrigued by this blog. I found it from Jason’s post at Positive Liberty. He posts here too: The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. The idea of the blog is similar to this one, a bit ‘off the axis.’ I’ll have to keep reading it.
One conversation that might be interesting is the following questions posed by Jason K, there:
