It’s fire season again

There have been a flurry of emails over the past few days between us and some dear friends who were evacuated last Wednesday due to the Monument fire in southern Arizona. When it jumped the highway late yesterday and destroyed a couple of restaurants only a mile from their home, we feared the worst. All day today we’ve been following the news in the local Sierra Vista newspaper, pouring over maps and especially Google Earth as affected street names were released. We’re breathing a bit easier tonight. Available information, not yet official, indicates that the fire stopped directly across the street from their home, turning north to run up a wash. Unfortunately, additional homes were damaged or destroyed, and our friends may well be facing smoke damage. At a minimum, the house will smell of smoke, but our friends and their menagerie of dogs and horses have found shelter with friends while they wait and worry. Needless to say, we’ll breath easier when we have the official word.

Class warfare? Really?

So, Tim Pawlenty thinks that President Obama is engaging in class warfare. Has he lost his mind? If there has been class warfare in this country, it’s the result of a generation of GOP policies of tax breaks for the uber-rich while wages have remained stagnant at best for the rest of us. The Republicans talk of Ronald Reagan as if he were a saint but they conveniently forget that Reagan’s tax rates were significantly higher than they are now. In fact, they’re so blinded by their admiration of him, that the GOP budget negotiators rolled their eyes in disbelief when the president pointed that fact out to them the other day. Perhaps that really sums up the nature of the problem. Republicans in Washington want to rely on their own set of “facts.” But facts are stubborn things. They don’t change just because they don’t fit your ideology.

And the really sad thing about Pawlenty’s comment is that the Fox-infused Republican base will lap it up as surely as they do the Gospel.

I’m Back

I said I would be on hiatus for the month of May. Well, I’m back. First a quick update on my post-surgery progress. In a word, I’m doing great. As I told the surgeon when I saw him this week, I’m probably 90-95% back to where I was before this whole thing started. So I’m very pleased. Still have a couple months of rehab, but functionally, the shoulder does almost everything I ask of it.

Spouse retired the end of April, and we spent most of May on the road. We spent five days in the Napa area, wine-tasting. YUM! Good wine, great meals. No wonder it’s a favorite destination! My favorite varietal is petit syrah. Vintner Carl Doumani is legendary for his petit syrah. He has a small winery called Quixote. Tours and tastings are by appointment only. We learned about Quixote when we visited Paraduxx. We are eagerly awaiting our shipment.

After a few days at home, we went to spouse’s 45th college reunion at Caltech, followed by the annual Seminar Day, where participants go back to class for a day. From there it was off to Arizona to visit family and friends. We spent a couple days in Sedona, marveling at the red rocks. It’s a photograph’s dream. We wrapped up that part of the trip with an off-road jeep adventure. Serious fun!

It’s always good to reconnect with good friends. And as we enter another political silly season, it’s good to remember and reflect on what is truly important…the people in our lives.

One more plug. If you ever have the opportunity to go to the Body Worlds exhibit, I can’t recommend it highly enough. It’s fabulous!

On hiatus

I had a bit of surgery last week and will be taking a break.  There are many worthwhile topics to discuss, but typing one-handed takes too much concentration.  So, I’m checking out for a while.  See y’all around the first of June.  By then I should be rehabbing my shoulder.  Nothing serious — they cleaned out a bunch of arthritic bone spurs, repaired a tear in the rotator cuff and dealt with a severely inflamed tendon.

In the meantime, something to think about.  I was watching Ken Burns’ Civil War series on a local PBS station, and Shelby Foote, a historian with Southern roots, made the statement that the war occurred because Americans forgot how to compromise — the very thing that he says is our genius as a nation and the essential thing that makes our form of government work.

Let the energy debate begin

The situation at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant in Japan seems to be more dire as time goes on.  Not only does the news about the extent of damage and the potential for further radiation releases continue to escalate, but now we’re hearing that TEPCO, the utility company, vastly underestimated the potential for the very sort of devastating tsunami that caused the cascade of events.

It’s no wonder that the utility doesn’t seem to know how to solve the cooling problem.  I’m not certain that it is “solvable” in the conventional sense of the term.  Four reactors in trouble, along with several spent fuel cooling ponds.  There is concern of breaches to the ponds, meaning that water will need to be added continually — possibly for years until the spent fuel has cooled enough to be transferred to dry cask storage or eventual reprocessing or permanent storage.  And there is concern that at least one of the reactor containment vessels may have cracked.  Both problems make it almost impossible to contain the radiation, and we’ve seen levels up to 100,000 times normal in parts of the plant.  Elevated radiation levels, while still too low to cause immediate risk to human health, have been detected thousands of miles from the crippled plant.

It’s not surprising that people are wrestling with the advisability of increased use of nuclear energy here at home, in addition to the fact that most of our nuclear power stations are nearing or even beyond their design life.

No form of energy production is without risk.  That goes without saying.  But what is needed is an open and honest conversation  about risks, and about life cycle costs of the various forms of energy we currently use, including renewable sources.  We need to know the per megawatt cost of the entire life cycle — licensing, construction, operation, maintenance, fuel costs, decommissioning/dismantlement of the plants.  We also need to know and to understand the costs of rendering safe any  waste products of each energy source.  And we need that information for all types of electric generation — hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, natural gas, coal, petroleum and nuclear.  And finally, we need to know all the ways in which government subsidizes various forms of energy generation and the ways in which government guarantees against losses that might be incurred by investors or insurers in the event of a failure somewhere in the generating process.

It is only in knowing all of the above information and being able to compare one energy source’s costs and risks against the others that we truly can understand what is at stake.  We know that petroleum is a finite resource.  When it will run out can be open to debate, but it will eventually run out.  Having an informed conversation about the uses of petroleum products (beyond burning them to generate electricity and power our vehicles) is essential.  And it is equally essential to expand that conversation to the point that we recognize that not all petroleum was created equal.  The oil that comes from some locations burns cleaner than that from other locations.  And it’s not equal in terms of the cost of extraction.

Thoughts on Egypt, and elsewhere

Almost a decade ago, one of the rationales for the U.S. move to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was to spread democracy.  Conventional wisdom has long held that democracy must be seized from within a country, not imposed from the outside.  Iraq is not now, and may not be democratic for a very long time.  On the other hand, looking at Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, and elsewhere in the Middle East, it would appear that homegrown democracy movements are taking root.

I’ve been following the events in Egypt, holding my breath as the people removed their support from the regime.  It has been apparent to me for over a week that Mubarak could not survive the change long-term.  It was only a matter of time before the regime fell.  The only question was whether the people could be deterred with sufficient force coming from the regime.  When the goon squads were sent in, I feared that wholesale violence would break out, and had the army not remained neutral, it could have.  But with the military’s commitment not to fire on the demonstrators, it became obvious that Mubarak’s hold on power was evaporating.  The only questions were how long he might try to hold on and whether he would leave with any of his dignity intact.

Yesterday, all indications were that he would be resigning.  But he had one last surprise up his sleeve.  I held my breath as the crowd realized that Mubarak had not resigned.  The crowd was primed for a massive celebration, and they were understandably shocked and angry.  Would their anger turn to violence?  What would the army do?

This morning, when discussing the fact of Mubarak’s resignation, NBC’s Brian Williams may have hit upon something profound, perhaps without realizing the implication of his words.  He mentioned that yesterday, the official statement from the Egyptian government was that Mubarak had turned over his powers to Vice President Suleiman, while retaining his titular role as President of Egypt.  That sentiment was echoed in interviews given by the Egyptian Ambassador to the U.S.  Yet, this morning, when VP Suleiman made his announcement of Mubarak’s resignation, he indicated that it was Mubarak (the titular but supposedly impotent president) who transferred power to the military.  Hmmmm.  If Mubarak had transferred power to Suleiman, how could he be the one to transfer power to the military today?  Was yesterday a shell game?  A “man behind the curtain” event, whereby Mubarak would still be controlling the levers of power while in theory Suleiman held them?  Or had the military in effect staged a coup, forcing Mubarak out, giving him the option of “resign or be fired.”

It remains to be seen what Egypt’s future will look like.  President Obama set out several markers in his statement — fair and free elections, revocation of the hated 30-year-old emergency law, and a transition to civilian rule with an open political process.  There will be a lot of work to do before those free and fair elections can be held.  Meanwhile, with Parliament having been dissolved and the entire cabinet sacked, much remains uncertain.

What will be most interesting will be to watch the response of both the leaders and the street in the other Middle Eastern countries.  Will there be another revolution?  Will the powers that be respond with violence?  Or might they try to get ahead of the street and institute meaningful reform?  No one knows.  Yet.  The temptation of the military will be to place stability ahead of democracy.  That’s what Mubarak did.  That’s what governments do in general.  It will take time and much lively discussion and negotiation to bring true democracy to Egypt.  There are many voices, many opinions, many dreams for Egypt’s future that will need to be heard and considered if true democracy is to prevail.  And a time of rising expectations can be unpredictable.

To the Egyptian people, I wish you well as you enter this new and exciting time in your history.

Where are the jobs, Mr. Speaker?

During the campaign leading up to the midterm elections, the GOP hammered the Democrats on the issue of jobs.  Yet, the first order of business when the GOP-led House began its session was to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  The repeal effort is loaded with irony, being almost exclusively a symbolic act that has no chance of succeeding through the Senate and surviving the inevitable presidential veto.  Contrary to GOP claims (and the title of the bill) that health care reform is a job-killer, it seems far more likely to be a job creator — mostly jobs in the private sector.  I enumerated some of that in my previous post, and while the numbers I suggested may have been inflated, I didn’t mention the new jobs in the health care sector itself that would be created.

The very next bill the House GOP is taking up is also largely if not totally symbolic: a permanent ban on Federal funds being used for abortion services.  Speaker Boehner and the GOP seem to have overlooked the Hyde Bill, which does prevent Federal funds to be used for abortions.  And the dreaded “Obamacare” act also contains provisions that ensure that no Federal funds will be used for abortions.  And this bill, as well as the health care repeal bill accomplishes nothing to create jobs and is more sound and fury, signifying only a sop to the GOP base.

Somewhere after they finish the symbolic moves, the GOP has signaled that they’re going to attack the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.  And, not surprisingly, they’re pointing to the “job-killing” aspects of regulations they don’t like.  Actually, it’s more like regulations the oil industry doesn’t like.  The truth of the matter is that moving to alternative forms of energy creates jobs.  Yes, there will be some jobs that will be phased out — jobs in the petroleum industry.  But that will happen over decades as the supply of petroleum on the planet is exhausted.  And the sooner we can begin a shift to non-petroleum-based energy, the longer the petroleum will last, along with the jobs in that industry.  Meanwhile, thousands of new jobs will be created — many more than will likely be lost.  That doesn’t sound like a job-killing idea.

Mr. Speaker, when are you actually going to do something toward creating jobs — something other than constantly using the phrase “job killing” when describing anything that might actually move the country forward?

The other guy made me do it

That seems to be the rationale of people like Glen Beck and Sarah Palin.  Both have chosen to respond to criticism that perhaps their political rhetoric has contributed to the vitriolic tone of our discourse by claiming that they are just doing what the other side has done.

Let me put my “mom hat” on for just a minute.  Since when do two wrongs make a right?  Blaming the other guy is a pretty poor excuse.  No body else can be held responsible for what another person says or does.  Someone can make us angry or frightened, but what we do with that emotion is entirely our own responsibility.  And just as that applies to an ordinary citizen who might feel that the heated rhetoric serves as a kind of permission to take action, so too does it apply to political and media figures who feel the heat when their own words or actions are called into question.

If political and media figures are so convinced that their words do not have any effect on another person’s actions, then why do they willingly spend so much money on advertising?

Health care debate, part 2

This week, the House of Representatives is taking up the case to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010.  House Republicans campaigned on the call to repeal and replace what they derisively call “Obamacare.”  However, their efforts are little more than political theater.  The Senate is unlikely to go along, and President Obama has promised to veto any repeal legislation that reaches his desk.

Unfortunately, the debate promises to shed precious little light on the topic, despite the GOP promises.  The first hint come in the title of the bill to repeal.  House Republicans claim that the health care law is a job killer, or as they’ve changed the name of the bill a job-destroyer.  They cite a figure of 1.6 million jobs, claiming the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as the source of their information.  And in a time of high unemployment (over 9% for the past 20 months), the idea of the economy shedding another 1.6 million jobs is sure to provide some political hay.  But let’s look more closely at that claim.  The 1.6 million figure is what the CBO estimates will be the number of Americans who can now afford to retire since the health care law was signed — people who have been working primarily to obtain health insurance.   That doesn’t sound like job-killing so much as a job creation effort — those 1.6 million new retirees will free up jobs for people who need and want them.  But it wouldn’t make much sense to try to repeal health care law by calling it a “Job Creating Health Care Law Act”, would it?  Further adding to the numbers is a Harvard study that demonstrates that repeal itself would cost somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 jobs.  That means a total swing of nearly 2 million jobs should repeal pass.

Polls are showing that even among Republicans, as Americans learn more about how the Affordable Health Care Act will actually affect them, the anger and opposition to it are diminishing.  And with that, support for full repeal is also decreasing.  In fact, when you look more closely at the numbers, those touted by the GOP as favoring repeal include a sizeable percentage who want the current law strengthened!

Ah, but what about the other half of the “repeal and replace” equation?  What does the GOP plan to replace it with, should repeal succeed?  Well, it appears that the GOP leadership is well aware of the silliness of their efforts because even after debating the current law and promising to come up with their own plan, it turns out that they still don’t really have a plan.  Sure, they have a rudimentary philosophical framework, but nothing concrete.  There isn’t much point in having a real plan when you know that your repeal efforts are strictly symbolic, that they have no chance of making it through the entire legislative process.  Yet, they proceed.

What the GOP fails to understand is that when you’re a majority in one of the legislative bodies, some responsibility for actually governing comes with the territory.  It will be interesting to see what they have on their agenda besides more doomed attempts to undo President Obama’s legislative accomplishments and threatening to vote against raising the debt ceiling.  Like some conservatives I know, it seems that the House GOP members are content to stand on ideology, even in the face of facts that warn against taking the extreme measures they support.

Thoughts on violent political rhetoric and political violence

Like most people, I was horrified to learn of the attempt on the life of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ8).  While she is not my representative, I have friends in her district, so it hit closer to home.  Not surprisingly, Sarah Palin’s aide is denying any connection between the shooting and Palin’s target list, the one that showed a number of Democratic districts in the cross-hairs.  And Sen. Alexander (R-TN) chooses to accuse the media of irresponsibility for even bringing up a possible connection.

So, was it a predictable result of an over-heated political atmosphere or simply the random act of a deranged individual?  Or, was it a combination of the two?  It seems entirely possible that the images of cross-hairs, the comments about “Second Amendment remedies”, about wanting constituents “armed and dangerous”, about “don’t retreat, reload,” and the like are enough to push unbalanced people over the edge.  Free speech is a right, but like all rights, it comes with responsibility attached.  And before any of us engages in violent rhetoric, we should consider that there are people out there who are sufficiently detached from reality to take our words literally.

Democracy needs dissent, but we can disagree without becoming disagreeable.  My kids will nod knowingly when they read that.  It was something I said to them many times as they were growing up.  I don’t mind if you disagree with me, but don’t be disagreeable in the way you go about it.  That means a measure of respect for the other person and their ideas, and even the willingness to consider that he or she might be onto something you haven’t yet considered.   I love a good debate, but I will and do walk away when the conversation gets ugly, when the other person chooses to attack a person rather than an idea.

And isn’t it also possible that those who use violent political rhetoric will be the recipients of violence, should they take a position that someone opposes?  So far, that possibility seems totally lost on those who use violent rhetoric.