Don't Look Now...
but there's peace in Darfur...
Well, not quite. What we have is one of many first steps towards peace. Unfortunately, many previous first steps have been on less than solid ground.
A peace treaty was signed by the largest rebel group and the Sudanese government, but if it were that simple, this might have ended 200,000 bodies ago. Two of the smaller rebel groups walked away from the table.
And even if this peace treaty is followed letter by letter, it still leaves quite a few problems. A segment of the population that lives in displacement camps. Prideful government opposition to peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. A culture that has to deal with the loss of about 450,000 lives.
How do you go about living in a country that condoned genocide? I don't know. The next few weeks are going to be very important, and if the government yields to the UN and lets peacekeepers in, it will be another step towards real peace.
That above is what I would call important news. I don't know too much about Darfur except that it's Bush's Rwanda. The below is a less important note...
Santorum. Not the frothy mix of lube and excrement made in the process of anal intercourse; the offensive one often preceded by the words Senator and Rick. He was one of the Senators behind a bill that sought to buy Alaska for $100 a constituent. It met massive opposition and highlighted Santorum and friends non-existent grasp on reality. This bill offended me.
On Tuesday, Santorum said the $100 check would be "immediate relief." Apparently those of us in PA pay the nations highest gas tax at 31 cents a gallon. I guess immediate tested better than temporary or short-lived or stop-gap in the focus groups.
Santorum wanted to bribe the American people so they would let his oil friends (over $400,000 in oil contributions) drill in Alaska. I could care less about the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve, but a little extra oil isn't going to drive prices down. It isn't going to ease our dependence on foreign oil. All it might do is lessen public support for alternative sources of energy as pro-oil politicians ring the "problem solved" bell.
The money he was bribing us with was gas tax money. 85% of the money goes to our roads. This was our money already. PA already has terrible roads, and he wanted to take money away from them? (Actually our roads are terrible thanks to poor government regulations. Drive over to Maryland and you'll find far better roads at a much smaller relative budget. Our roads are only 6 feet deep, theirs are 8. However, the problems that stem from this lack of regulations require a larger repair budget, so I think my point is still valid.)
An 11% gas tax was not the problem with pump prices.
The only problem that Santorum's bill actually addressed was fuel standards. The bill did give the Department of Transportation authority to raise fuel efficiency standards. It isn't something he's ever supported in the past, but flip-flopping is the new black in Republican circles. It was tied to a bill that had no chance of passing, but he'll be able to campaign on the issue anyway.
A problem that wasn't addressed was obvious price gouging. After Katrina, oil companies saw they could charge more and demand wouldn't fall. Now prices keep going up. Any company found guilty of price gouging now has to pay a fine, but after a very short White House investigation, no guilt was found.
The other problem is "royalty relief" which might require some explaining. You could either read this New York Times article or my awkward summary
A Clinton plan that made sense at $10 a barrel translates to free money at $70 a barrel. Royalty relief is only starting to come into effect and probably didn't have much to do with the recent record profits. When gas was $10 a barrel, it wasn't profitable to explore for oil in federally owned deep sea areas. It takes a long time to set up deep drilling oil rigs, and a lot of them are only now starting to draw oil. Clinton's plan had a price trigger at $35 a barrel; meaning that anything above $35 a barrel was subject to typical royalties. The problem is those price triggers were waived for any project started in '98 and '99. The oil coming from '98 and '99 projects should pay royalties in the amount of 7 billion dollars over the next 5 years. The oil industry is fighting the price triggers for other years which could end up costing the US around 28 billion dollars en total.
Though re-enacting those royalties wouldn't be a permanent solution, it would be far less short term than drilling in Alaska or giving people $100 and shitty road repairs. Of course it (and any other real solution) requires Republicans to act on behalf of the common man and against the oil industry. I wish I could see that happening.
Well, not quite. What we have is one of many first steps towards peace. Unfortunately, many previous first steps have been on less than solid ground.
A peace treaty was signed by the largest rebel group and the Sudanese government, but if it were that simple, this might have ended 200,000 bodies ago. Two of the smaller rebel groups walked away from the table.
And even if this peace treaty is followed letter by letter, it still leaves quite a few problems. A segment of the population that lives in displacement camps. Prideful government opposition to peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. A culture that has to deal with the loss of about 450,000 lives.
How do you go about living in a country that condoned genocide? I don't know. The next few weeks are going to be very important, and if the government yields to the UN and lets peacekeepers in, it will be another step towards real peace.
That above is what I would call important news. I don't know too much about Darfur except that it's Bush's Rwanda. The below is a less important note...
Santorum. Not the frothy mix of lube and excrement made in the process of anal intercourse; the offensive one often preceded by the words Senator and Rick. He was one of the Senators behind a bill that sought to buy Alaska for $100 a constituent. It met massive opposition and highlighted Santorum and friends non-existent grasp on reality. This bill offended me.
On Tuesday, Santorum said the $100 check would be "immediate relief." Apparently those of us in PA pay the nations highest gas tax at 31 cents a gallon. I guess immediate tested better than temporary or short-lived or stop-gap in the focus groups.
Santorum wanted to bribe the American people so they would let his oil friends (over $400,000 in oil contributions) drill in Alaska. I could care less about the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve, but a little extra oil isn't going to drive prices down. It isn't going to ease our dependence on foreign oil. All it might do is lessen public support for alternative sources of energy as pro-oil politicians ring the "problem solved" bell.
The money he was bribing us with was gas tax money. 85% of the money goes to our roads. This was our money already. PA already has terrible roads, and he wanted to take money away from them? (Actually our roads are terrible thanks to poor government regulations. Drive over to Maryland and you'll find far better roads at a much smaller relative budget. Our roads are only 6 feet deep, theirs are 8. However, the problems that stem from this lack of regulations require a larger repair budget, so I think my point is still valid.)
An 11% gas tax was not the problem with pump prices.
The only problem that Santorum's bill actually addressed was fuel standards. The bill did give the Department of Transportation authority to raise fuel efficiency standards. It isn't something he's ever supported in the past, but flip-flopping is the new black in Republican circles. It was tied to a bill that had no chance of passing, but he'll be able to campaign on the issue anyway.
A problem that wasn't addressed was obvious price gouging. After Katrina, oil companies saw they could charge more and demand wouldn't fall. Now prices keep going up. Any company found guilty of price gouging now has to pay a fine, but after a very short White House investigation, no guilt was found.
The other problem is "royalty relief" which might require some explaining. You could either read this New York Times article or my awkward summary
A Clinton plan that made sense at $10 a barrel translates to free money at $70 a barrel. Royalty relief is only starting to come into effect and probably didn't have much to do with the recent record profits. When gas was $10 a barrel, it wasn't profitable to explore for oil in federally owned deep sea areas. It takes a long time to set up deep drilling oil rigs, and a lot of them are only now starting to draw oil. Clinton's plan had a price trigger at $35 a barrel; meaning that anything above $35 a barrel was subject to typical royalties. The problem is those price triggers were waived for any project started in '98 and '99. The oil coming from '98 and '99 projects should pay royalties in the amount of 7 billion dollars over the next 5 years. The oil industry is fighting the price triggers for other years which could end up costing the US around 28 billion dollars en total.
Though re-enacting those royalties wouldn't be a permanent solution, it would be far less short term than drilling in Alaska or giving people $100 and shitty road repairs. Of course it (and any other real solution) requires Republicans to act on behalf of the common man and against the oil industry. I wish I could see that happening.
Gunnar @ 12:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home