Pennsylvania

Internet Regulation Would Take a Toll on Pennsylvania’s Economy

-By Dave McClure, President and CEO of the US Internet Industry Association

As Congress adjourns for its August recess, and lawmakers head home to tout accomplishments and missed opportunities, host town halls, and explain their votes to constituents, one issue that cannot go overlooked is oppressive regulation of the Internet – or net neutrality.

It’s an issue that has been a priority at the Federal Communications Commission and has the full support of President Obama. “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to net neutrality,” he has said.

The problem is, net neutrality would be detrimental to Pennsylvania’s economy, and it would hurt businesses and consumers across the state. Yet many Democrats and the Obama Administration have embraced this policy, and we need your help in setting the record straight.

Communications companies have invested some $30 billion per year over the past five years to build broadband networks across the country. Since 2003, those investments have created 434,000 new jobs nationwide and helped swell Pennsylvania’s high-tech workforce to 216,000 jobs. Over the next five years, similar investment levels in broadband network deployment should yield more than half a million jobs.

That is one large bright spot in an otherwise dismal economic recovery in Pennsylvania, where unemployment is still over 9 percent after 226,000 jobs were shed since President Obama took office. A policy misstep like net neutrality could blot out broadband’s sunny spot on the jobs horizon.

Net neutrality regulations are a set of oppressive rules that would squelch broadband competition and, therefore, investment. Proponents say rules are needed to prevent one provider from discriminating against others’ content. The truth of the matter is that the Federal Communications Commission is already empowered to police such matters and enforce fair play among all. The commission, in these matters at least, has had a lot of free time on its hands since there’s only been one instance that could be construed as discrimination and it was quickly remedied by the FCC.

Case closed. Matter resolved. Existing regulations work. No additional rules, whether they be born of regulation or legislation, are needed.

During the recession, capital spending declined more than 18 percent. At the same time, telephone companies, cable companies and wireless operators investing in broadband infrastructure cut capital spending only 3 percent. This steady investing during the darkest economic period our nation has experienced since the Great Depression sustained hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Broadband also has the potential to create new efficiencies and new economic value, and the jobs that go with such gains. Consider the impact broadband and its applications have on other sectors of the economy, from hotels to manufacturing. As more sectors adopt broadband, the more they must, in turn, increase their own investments in computers, software and other technologies. Those investments also create new jobs. A recent study found that for every percentage point increase in broadband penetration, several hundred thousand more new jobs are produced. Broadband access has been rising by several percentage points per year.

Network neutrality rules would cloud this picture and deter new job growth by stifling the investments broadband providers have been consistently making in laying cable, fiber and DSL lines and making new connections via wireless and satellite-based broadband networks – all the hard work behind expansion of broadband penetration.

Limited government interference will result in maximum broadband investment, the highest number of sustainable jobs and the most new job creation. That’s a huge win for Pennsylvania’s consumers and businesses alike.

David McClure is the president & CEO of the US Internet Industry Association (www.usiia.org), of which the Pennsylvania Telephone Association is a member. David has testified before the Pennsylvania General Assembly on broadband issues. Founded in 1994, USIIA advocates effective public policy for the Internet and provides its members with essential business news, information, support and services.

Post primary polling data positive news for Democrats

As statistically indicated, the Democratic Party WILL lose seats in the upcoming midterms.  No one questions this - not now and not in any midterm election.  Cases where the majority gained seats in a midterm are aberrant.  But the picture improved for the Democratic Party given the results of the primaries, primarily because the Right elected a handful of candidates that, like them or not, have thrown a number of races that were a slam dunk for Republicans back into the "leaning Democratic" category. 

There are several other variations on this theme, but the bottom line is that in yesterday's Senate Rankings at fivethrityeight.com, the meta-polling picture improved for the Democratic Party, who now is more likely than not to hold onto 55 seats.  The Republican Party's chances to take the Senate remains at about 6%.  And a lot depends on which party Charlie Crist caucuses with should he win the FL seat (which looks increasingly likely). 

Here's the goods from the dean of polling data:  http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/senate-forecast-after-primaries-picture.html

Local or national in PA-12?

Local or national in PA-12?

Unfortunately, the debate around PA-12 seems to center around the failure of “nationalizing” the election.  This failure occurred in part because Mark Critz was able to portray himself as a moderate on issues like guns, life, and health care, and in part because Critz was able to convince voters that he would model his economic plan after the late John Murtha’s porky earmarks.  

In light of the seeming failure of a 1994-esque nationalization strategy, the advice from some corners seems to be to focus on local issues.  This addresses the problem too narrowly.  The problem is that this is a federal office, and for the most part the only “local” issues revolve around earmark spending for “jobs”.  A Republican candidate can not run in a district like PA-12 without selling the message that Congress is hurting job creation, and by challenging the premise that pork spending leads to sustainable jobs.  

As if it needed reiteration, the issue is jobs.  Given the failure of the Obama economic message in key districts, and voter focus on national issues, the question is less about whether to nationalize districts like PA-12, but how.   Why does it matter that Mark Critz won’t vote to repeal Obamacare?  Because it hurts job creation.  Why does it matter that Nancy Pelosi controls the legislative agenda?  Because everything she passes is detrimental to jobs.  Why are earmarks bad?  Because $2 million per earmark-job is too much money and hurts private sector job creation.

This is in contrast to the bad sort of nationalization.  Bad nationalization leads to fighting for the soul of the Republican party in a swing district general election.  Bad nationalization is running as a Tea Partier with a flawed Tea Party message rather than adapting the Tea Party issues to a broader language and focus.

For years, underdog candidates campaigned against John Murtha on ethical issues, his closeness to unpopular national Democratic figures like Pelosi, and idiotic remarks Murtha made about the US Marines involved in the Haditha incident.  None of it ever worked.  Murtha had Federal money for “jobs”.  Murtha even called his constituents a bunch of rednecks to no ill effect.  (How’s that for a local issue?)

Why should these tactics start working all of a sudden, now that Murtha has shuffled off this mortal coil.  Even the flawed PPP poll taken shortly before the special election showed that the Pelosi negatives were not rubbing off on Critz.  

I’ve heard political consultants say “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”.  Well, we’re not doing any explaining, and we’re losing, so best we figure out how to explain things in simple language and well chosen narratives.

The Republican messages and policies on jobs are national.  There’s no escaping this essential fact.  They need to be translated into local language.  Doing so requires challenging the premise that pork spending is a long term winner, and if there’s any cycle in which to promote that message, it’s this one.

(Cross-posted to my personal blog.)

What the right needs to do to regain acceptance and credibility by the mainstream

The right has lost its way and a lot of people are starting to recognize this.  Books are being written (The Death of Conservatism, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party, etc.)  Here are my thougths on what is wrong and what needs to be done about it.

Discredit those who are not helpful

Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc. have said a lot of downright crazy and dumb things (people with AIDS should be quarantined, etc.)  and are far too tied to Christianity.  They should be called out for that and pushed to the side so that true leaders on the right can rise to the top and give the right a real chance at regaining credibility and the minds of those who are undecided or in the center.  Those who espose hate, and anger should also be discredited and pushed to the side (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.).  It is long past time for Conservative talk radio to become more academic, constructive, and hopeful sounding, and cater to the best in us (love, hope, unity, civics, etc.), rather than the worst (fear, anger, race, etc.).

Stop catering to the Christian right

Christianity has nothing to do with conservative ideas and theory on money, foreign policy, etc.  There is also supposed to be a strong seperation of church and state.  Our country was formed partially for freedom of religion, and if our government is run by someone who wants to impose their religion through laws and perspective, then we lose that.  In addition, America is not a Christian nation; though nearly 80% are Christian, there is still another 20% that are not.

Stop simply opposing every idea President Obama has and propose alternative solutions

The right has really been a thorn in our Presidents side instead of working with him to solve the problems in America.  The way to gain credibility and get some conservative ideas into law is to honestly work with the left to create good policy, and also proactively propose laws to solve some of our problems before the left takes up the problem.

Stop supporting causes that have nothing to do with Conservative ideology

The right should disassociate itself with such issues as abortion, and other things that are outside of the ideas of conservatism.  Abortion is an issue thats argument against it is primarily based in religion.  The same applies to marriage equality for gays; the argument against it can only be made from a religious standpoint.  Because of this, and because no party should be tied to any religion, just as our government should not be tied to any religion, the right as a whole and Republicans as a party should disassociate theirselves with abortion and start supporting equal rights for gays.  These two issues alone keep some of those in the center and on the left from ever supporting a Republican candidate.  It might cause a lot of those on the Christian right to be upset, but then they can choose the party that best conforms to what their idea of government should do on all other issues, or form a new 3rd party that is tightly tied to Christianity.

Stop being inconsistent

Right now many on the right are opposing government run health care on the idea that even though it may save a lot of lives, it isn't proper for the government or taxpayers to help others.  Yet, many of those same people are in support of the war in Iraq to give people in another country freedom and save their lives.  Why should we spend taxpayer dollars to police the world yet not spend taxpayer dollars to save those within our own borders?  Either we shouldn't spend money to help others, or we should and if we should then we should definitely want to help those within our own borders before those who are not within our borders.

Stop being hawks

The right has become a group of hawks and this is contrary to conservative ideas on foreign policy.  Conservative ideas on foreign policy are as spelled out by the Cato Institute:

Cato's foreign policy vision is guided by the idea of our national defense and security strategy being appropriate for a constitutional republic, not an empire. Cato's foreign policy scholars question the presumption that an interventionist foreign policy enhances the security of Americans in the post-Cold War world, and maintain instead that interventionism has consequences, including the formation of countervailing alliances, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and even terrorism. The use of U.S. military force should be limited to those occasions when the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk.

Conservatives need to re-embrace those ideas.  They are the ideas that our nations founders had in mind, and they are the ideas that are the most ethical and that might also allow some on the left to consider the rest of our ideas.

Have a well thought out income tax policy

There either should not be an income tax as Libertarians would like, or there should be an income tax that works to support Conservative values.  A tax that is progressive helps strengthen families at the lower incomes and therefore helps literacy rates, etc. which helps to preserve conservative values of strong families, an educated populace, etc.  Right now the government has taken on far too much responsibility and therefore spends too much and our national debt is growing because of it.  It is time to start cutting back on spending, but at the same time increasing revenue and the only realistic way to increase revenue is through a progressive income tax because those in the middle and lower class cannot support any higher tax burden.

Start supporting alternative energy and embrace that global warming is real and might be caused by us

The science is in, global warming is real and it is probably caused by our actions (and can we afford to gamble that it is not?).  Most of the oil that is easily available is in countries with citizens that do not like us.  Because of these two things, it is long past time to start looking into energy sources that do not emit CO2, and that do not require us to work with countries that are not friendly to us.

Stop catering to Israel

We give far too much money and support to Israel and it hurts our credibilty around the world and doesn't help to reduce the hatred towards us in the Muslim world.  It is time to treat Israel as we would any other country that is a friend and ally of ours.  We should work with them, and be friends with them, but we should point out when they are doing something that works against peace in the middle east and use our monetary aid as a tool to help control their actions rather than blindly supporting them at all times.

Start rethinking drug policy

The war on drugs does not work, and will never work so long as it is punitive rather than based in medicine.  It only makes organized crime stronger, and leads to a larger role of government and often leads to violations of our constitutional rights.  The punitive war on drugs was originally based on racism, and is now based in morality that is derived from religion.  For these reasons, it is time for the federal government to take a non punitive role and start considering policy that would put organized crime out of business, make drug use safer and less damaging to society, and help those who are ready to reform their lives through cessation of drug abuse.

 

 

Proposals for a Nation gone off--Conclusion

 The Individual

  

From the foreign let us finish with a return to the individual and a reminder that the house swept clean does not constitute genuine reform.  All true reform is a circumcision of the heart.  None of the attractive proposals that came before will be made real without a thorough change in the individual write large, in the national individual.  None of what may be wicked or worthless in what came before (if any such) will be avoided without free and self-directed individuals.

 

There is no better time to remind ourselves of the “Parable of the Owl” preserved for us in that book of ‘Abd-ar-Rahmân Abû Zayd ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Khaldûn, the most beautiful soul in Mohammeddom:   The world is a garden the fence of which is the dynasty.  The dynasty is an authority through which life is given to proper behavior.  Proper behavior is a policy directed by the ruler.  The ruler is an institution supported by the soldiers.  The soldiers are helpers who are maintained by money.  Money is sustenance brought together by the subjects.  The subjects are servants protected by justice.  Justice is something familiar and through it the world persists.  The world is a garden . . . 

 

The fulcrum of any contemporary rendition of this circle would have the world start and end and find its persistence and meaning through the individual, his effort and his ends.  That is where the garden lies today.

 

An honest politics, however, would prompt us to note that our reformed house is no paradise or even common-garden.  Rather we seek a politics of such subtlety, surpassing mildness and calm that the very day after this program be enacted not one person will be able to discern a single difference from the day before or any other day in recent memory -- and this despite the fact that we call these days, our days, bad, tawdry, servile and worthless.  Shallow and doomed.  From one day to the next our politics would change nothing.  Yet, despite its start in the exact same, in the workings of its slow repercussions the relation of government to individual will be radically transformed.  Our proposals therefore are not what the world should be, they are what the world is, the reality of prices, the reality of conflict, the reality of a government difficult to dislodge without injuring its dependents.  We have merely proposed a set of gambits which allow the individual to interact with that world more honestly and more and more so over time.  Prosperity is prospective. 

 

To resign ourselves to a fifty year reversal from the last fifty years should not dispirit us.  Finding ourselves at odds with our present should not dispirit us.  Take the long view of our troubles and move “like the sun through the ecliptic.” 

 

To lay the improvements over the generations should not blind us either to the reality of work.  Life is often painful and to travel to a great good is often to suffer without the benefits of fantasy.  Work is the only God who will never abandon you.  Finding ourselves in the present condition, there is much work to do.  Every improvement in our condition will be a slow improvement and well earned.  Unlike the previous generations, we will have built well and earned the gratitude of a world freer and happier than this one.

 

Work is the only God who will never abandon us.  There is work everywhere and in all things.  There is work waiting in ourselves.  While we have spoken lavishly in praise of liberty, in coming home to the individual, the seat of liberty, let us acknowledge that the daily reality of life is formed mostly through necessity.  We don’t live in good times and honesty requires the grim honesty of laboring for the better and expecting the worse.

 

———

 

There is a story well told to children that could profit us all -- that in this universe, one can travel -- at the speed of light, mind you -- for millions of years and never come across another sentient being, one who can think and feel and play and laugh as a human can.  For all intents and purposes, human beings might as well be considered unique -- there is no reasonable approximation to us within voyaging distance.  To be a human being therefore is to be of infinite worth.  Yet, that said, what is the most beautiful thing about economics?  That that's not good enough!  It’s not good enough to be a member of a rare and beautiful species.  It’s not good enough to be rarer that a star. It’s not good enough to be a cosmically unique species because here on Earth there's another one just like you not four feet away.  Your obligation in the context of other rare beings of infinite worth is to be an individual, as much as humans are unique you have a similar opportunity to become wholly your own, to differentiate yourself from every other human, to be as separate and dignified as one star from another.  If the economy is cruel, it is the cruelty of not letting us rest satisfied with being creatures of infinite worth.  And where would we be without that prompting?

 

As a matter of serviceable rhetoric it should be kept in mind that belief in free markets is an expression of self confidence as much as anything regarding the market itself.  People who hold other views are signaling their concern -- fear of being “left behind,” of being humiliated, exploited etc.  Since modern liberals claim to prize the virtues of hearing the other side only to about face and “seize the moral high-ground” (useful for kicking their opponents in the face and precluding other views), let us be the true liberal and listen to what people are saying in their own language.  Let the "sweet rose of persuasion" guide our public discourse.

 

Understanding also that it is difficult to respectfully address those who are depriving you of your liberty, let us find some polite argumentation to address directly those who require a federal subsidy to maintain their self regard, those who crave the amniotic graces of the welfare state and those who given the infinite possibilities open to the individual opt instead for the wretched personal power of the ballot box to found and perpetuate their happiness, drowned in a sea of 300 million.  Consider then this experiment: if we established a two-tier citizenship, with some opting for the obligation of paying for the army and enforcing the public safety, and others opting for a full service government as well as paying, themselves, for all the bells and whistles a bureaucrat can dream up -- what do you think would happen?  It’s very likely that the full service government would be in and out of bankruptcy court, that the sorrowful dupes who purchased its bond offerings would get back pennies on the dollar and shortly afterwards this full service government, paid for only by those who received those services, mind you, would quickly dissolve.

 

The limited government on the other hand would persist.  This thought experiment is not so far distant from the state we have today except that because the full service government relies on the payments of those who do not opt for the welfare state or benefit from it,* it will persist slightly longer than if it were funded exclusively by those who want and use those services.  The welfare state guarantees that 49.9 percent of the population will be alienated from their government because in an electoral system that figure is the point where it no longer pays to provide.  For safety’s sake, its own, it will always try to hold a better balance than 50.1 to 49.9 but there are well known economic realities that will keep it from maintaining a conveniently minimal, demonized and exploited class to pay for a large majority of beneficiaries.

Yes, humanity is only a few generation up from slavery, serfdom and peasant sureties, and it is no coincidence that the welfare state grew in the wake of those happy demises.  Yet, are we to rest content with an unfree world today only one step removed from the unfree world of yesterday?  No, let us be free, to face the world and ourselves as is.  Socialism, as it has revealed itself in its various forms, can only perpetuate itself through the degradation of humanity.  Its root calculus has ever been the welfare of the government and its permanent classes.  It is doomed.  Social security is doomed.  Socialized medicine is doomed.  All of the poisoned programs the federal government has foisted upon the populace are doomed.  We don’t have to be doomed.  Let us think of a future without them.

 

Work will be the only God to never abandon us even for a moment.  Life can rise to the tolerable, to as good as can be expected, to the “OK.”  Let us cultivate our virtue and fear nothing.  We’ll do OK.

If you missed it......

If you weren't at the RightOnline conference this weekend, let me highly recommend viewing this blogger panel discussion.  The event was aired on C-SPAN, and features Robert Bluey, Matt Lewis and Erick Erickson. 

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/08/15/HP/A/22179/RightOnline+2009+National+Convention+Day+Two.aspx

Blog for Conservatism

Today in Pittsburgh, some of the most committed members of conservatism are getting together to discuss the importance of, and also strategize increasing a conservative presence via the internet....

The decline in newspaper sales, and decrease of legitimacy in the mainstream media are no doubt an example of the average American taking to turning on their computer for their news...

Thus, let's see what happens and stay informed on this year's, RightOnline National Conference...

Emissions Standards: The Global Siege on America >>

Let me begin by pronouncing the agreements that I share with Democrats. Or rather: let me be clear. The Earth is a gift from God, and is, aside from perhaps the feminine form, the most stunning thing in existence. No man alive is so base as to devalue what we have. This vehicle, like the Hand that created it, yields beyond sustenance and gives inspiration.

Now with that caveat out of the way, I submit that the Liberals, the Greens, and the Radical Left’s feel-good ideas of castrating the industrial machine are reckless and downright dangerous for America. The Left (and by extension the Democratic Party), in what has become an international battle royale for energy, prefers to surrender our arms and engines.  They are gruelingly unable to comprehend nuclear and fossil energy as a game-changing tactical weapon like steel and gunpowder. Nor are they able to accept that environmental stewardship treaties ratified by international bodies actually hold deliberate, ulterior motives to tightly bind America in other ways. And a shrugging regard at such powers is one of the most imminent dangers of the new century.

And to temper this sentiment, I believe that America can and should reduce its negative impact on the environment; namely by shifting from coal to nuclear power as a staple like France did and John McCain suggested. It seems that Liberals only like the bad ideas from Europe, but none of the good ones. As a case in point, we would have already reached the Kyoto emissions goals through the nuclear option that Republicans have proposed for years.

 

If President Bush had not pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol that President Clinton signed in 1997, we would have shouldered the burden of what other nations turn and ignore. Sadly, many of the global shirkers were Kyoto's chief architects within the European Union! Aside from ignoring the pollution of China and India which clearly no longer deserve special exemption, it held America to an unreasonable standard.

Europe's Performance:       

The European Union has had mixed results since signing the Kyoto Accord. Spain failed abysmally at achieving its goals and Italy approached underdeveloped Russia to buy carbon credits. To contextualize Russia’s position, the fall of the Soviet Union led to "Perestroika" and an industrial collapse, and Kyoto’s lax standards on Russia were assessed on this collapse. Similarly, Germany claims to have decreased their overall emissions. Yet, the integration of East Germany and the other ex-Soviet states (whose outmoded production stood to be revamped anyway) has tilted this statistic grossly. The reunification of West Germany to East Germany made it much easier to restructure the rusting coal-fired production of the Cold War. This overhaul was slated to happen anyway, making such a benchmark much easier to reach. Now having lived in Spain, I saw the staggering unemployment that fluctuated between 12-18%, and that is one thing that haunts me with upcoming legislations in the pipeline. Spanish Economist Gabriel Calzada detailed the consequences of these legislations in his “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources,” which demonstrates the damaging falsehoods of the “green job,” whatever that is. According to this perplexed academe, the subsidy of every 1 green job costs 2.2 regular jobs through inefficiencies, displacement, and re-allocation, and he expects the same results in the United States with President Obama’s Cap-and-Trade deal.

The liberal admonitionary chatchprase that “the debate is over” has battered many eardrums, not just yours. In the video below is an interview with Ex Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain. It’s not in English, but I can tell you that he treats the question of climate change as we do in America. His affiliates call climate change a religion, fettered with dogma, and state we have a “blue planet, not a green one.” Like many in the US, he claims not to be a “denier,” as that label presupposes something to deny. He concludes by stating that the debate is not over, because it has yet to even commence, and that there has been a marked decay in parliamentary spirit and democratic debate in Spain in years past, and that people should return to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MD_bDfFaeI

China’s Performance:    

    The People’s Republic of China had recently surpassed the United States in CO2 emission in mid-2008, debunking the notion that America is the #1 offender.  But according to the environmental lunatics on the Left, we, The United States of America, must lead by example through blind faith and hope without assurance, that a military despotism like China will get warm fuzzies and turn green long after we have sacrificed trillions in GDP, millions of jobs, and the strategic high grounds that come with robust productive capacity. Yep. After watching America sadomasochistically self-immolate for a decade, China will want to join the rip-roarin’ fun!

India’s Performance:

Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited India, and India’s Environmental Minister laid out a stalwart launch pad from which to negotiate future accords with the West. In short, he was not willing to sell his nation down the postmodern drain. I wish I could say the same for our leaders. Take a look for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyfJKgIQPXQ

Hillary’s refuted olive branch in New Delhi will be a microcosm of times to come, as we become the poor little match girl, passing from door to door and selling our eco-wares at no avail to a world hurtling in the opposite direction towards Ayn Rand.

The Ghosts of Energy Present and Future:

In America, we are a nation of people, not “masses” as the planeteers tend to esteem us. Hence, Carl Sagan’s hint at microbes having rights superseding those of humans will not fly far amidst a people unable to subtract anthropocentrism from stargazing, and who care little to imagine the giant unknowable workings of space and time after humans. Politically, it would be madness for a politico to expand his constituencies to mother earth, time, and space (gerrymandering would have to be done in either 3D or parsecs). The only manner in which to mobilize the public, or massage them into becoming pliant, would be to create a false sense of crisis, fear, and to literally demonize opposition as paid off or "flat-earthers." So it comes as no surprise that both Cap-and-Trade and ObamaCare are to be rushed. Despite that, the pending Waxman-Markey Bill puts forth many of the directives of “Old Europe” that will scare away manufacturing to the hills of Asia and Latin America. And Washington DC is counting on your docility to pass it.

Now according to the CIA World Factbook, America produces 14 trillion dollars in GDP as a total of our economy while China produces over 4 trillion. We dump 5.9 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while China chugs out a full 6 billion. Now comparing the GDP in ratio to national emissions, a revelation emerges: We produce .00042 tons of CO2 per dollar of production. China produces .0015 tons of CO2 per dollar of production. So if cleanliness is the utmost goal, then the United States should already serve as an example to China, given that with a smaller population we produce more goods for the world at cleaner levels. 

Two points highlight China’s energy strategy for the 21st century: a petroleum highway and an emissions-free nuclear grid to make up for it. They already foresaw that T. Boone Pickens would abandon windfarms (which he did) and all the takeout joints in Hong Kong cannot accumulate the biodiesel grease to power fleets of buses. To put it another way: they’re not screwing around.  

According to Westinghouse Electric International, China has made it a national priority to build 100 nuclear power plants by 2020 (more resemblant of the Space Race than ObamaCare). And this national mobilization utilizes United States technology! Lord knows that the EU is already jacked into the atomic grid as well. We are not.

What’s the matter?  Did I frazzle your hippiemojo-windpower vibe and shatter your image of the avuncular T. Boone, who you learned was so hip during the hopeandchange era? Too bad, undergrad. It gets worse.

Aside from holding our debt, China is leveraging its surpluses to purchase assets around the globe, opening up trade channels to fan out their empire. Africa has become the next battlefield for resources, and China is pulling no punches in applying the same colonial takeover methodology as the powers of Europe did a century past. Nearly one third of all of China’s petroleum imports come from the African continent, and they have begun courting nations like Angola, The Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and yes…Sudan. With an economy growing at 9% for the past two decades, they are jealously vying for control of new sources of timber, coal, copper, and oil, and doing so in side by side competition with the United States. Traditionally, China has taken a hands-off approach towards meddling in the affairs of another nations (since they themselves have no desire for scrutiny), but has recently scrapped this diplomatic dogma by cozying up to local oil-friendly African nations and their government officials. A crux of their tactic has been to lay “investments” into roads, fiber optics, technology training, bridges, and other infrastructures that would otherwise bollix African nations to quickly build for themselves. This colonial paradox for a once insular power demonstrates that the searing growth of their nation has alarmingly trumped old wisdoms, and is goading them to do what it takes to win…Confucius be damned and anyone else who stands in their way.

In this quest to outbid America in global energy sources, arms have become a desired currency for petty dictators and warlords, and China is in no short supply. While Western powers have done the same for some time in supporting unsavory regimes for regional interest, the rabbit hole goes much deeper in China’s case. Dangerous regions like Sudan receive their arms shipments from China (and military trainers), while 60% of Sudanese oil output heads in the other direction. This transcontinental circulation of arms-for-oil has been used to curry favor with African members of the United Nations, allowing for more votes to disregard China’s human rights violations and it even compells African nations to rebuff the ineffectual African Union in overseeing Sino-African commerce in its own continent.

Brazil, the fastest-growing economy in Latin America and by far its largest nation, has announced that China has surpassed the United States as a trade partner in an historic demand sweep for iron ore. In February of this year, Brasil’s state-run oil company accepted a $10 billion-dollar loan deal from the People’s Republic of China, and agreed to supply China’s national oil company, SINOPEC, with petroleum output. Through decades of cultural drift from North America, and socialist Brazilian President Lula da Silva at the helm, who blames American capitalism for the global meltdown, totalitarian wheels have been set in motion in our own, western hemisphere.

An Old Bear, still tired of American power, has bellowed out a roar to be heard across Eurasia. It is common knowledge that Russia has been buying up utility companies in Eastern Europe, and providing shelter in the United Nations for Iran, a country with its own untapped resources. The recent invasion of Georgia and South Ossetia impinged into their Caucasus pipeline—one of the few pipelines that flows into Europe independently of Russia. It is no small wonder that Vladimir Putin threatened to sever the pipeline into Europe to keep the west at bay. 

The Final Word:

With exploding demand, China, Russia, and other hostile powers will continue to buy, to seek, and to prod for more economic hegemony, and weave it into their mutual fatigue with America’s superpower status. And what do they all have in common? They purchase assets with government-run oil companies, treating utilities like defense commodities and branching out with the backing of infinite subsidy under the guise of corporate buyout. And to add insult to injury, they are all exempt from Waxman-Markey and Kyoto mandates. Here in the States, we own literally oceans of natural gas beneath our bedrock, and deluvian reserves offshore. We even have three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia in the Rocky Mountains. All of this is capable of being transported with modern technology that has come a long way since the Exxon-Valdez spill ages ago; yet drilling remains illegal in spite of marvelous precautionary advances and a clean record since. This vainglorious distaste for black crude serves as an object of haughty disdain for the Liberal elite, and from others it is merely a reckless childishness regarding the stern realities of this world. Tanks are not powered on corn oil, F-22 fighter jets do not run on solar power, and aircraft carriers do not use windmills. We fuel these battle weapons with fossil fuels and nuclear reactors—the twin strategic pillars of the Republican energy platform and still the beverage of choice for the grown-up world.  

Nothin’ like the real thing. 

As I exit stage right with reminiscence, I recall President Bill Clinton rejecting a Republican push in 1995 to drill in ANWR, a frozen desert, claiming that the project would not yield oil until 2005. This stance would then contort into blatant denial when in 2008, the Democratic Party would then accuse Republicans of short-sightedness for wanting to drill in Palin Country. Fittingly enough, either party has yet to accuse China, a 4,000 year-old kingdom, of being short-sighted.

America is under siege. I suggest we start guarding our aqueducts. >>

 

 

PA-GOV: Fumo's corruption creates opportunities for GOP

In March, I wrote about the GOP opportunities that follow from the conviction of South Philly machine Democratic State Senator Vincent Fumo. The recent news of Democratic corruption out of New Jersey (mayors, rabbis, and body-parts, oh my!) and the emerging consensus that this fundamentally damages Jon Corzine's already difficult re-election, when combined with outrage at farcically light sentencing creates real opportunities for Republicans.

Let's go over the facts and see how much this helps Pennsylvania Republicans in 2010:

1. Pat Meehan, one of the Republican candidates for Governor got the initial indictments against Fumo. Tom Corbett, the other one, has his own story to tell about indicting Fumo and his operation. If Chris Christie ends up winning in New Jersey, there will be a ready-made media narrative comparing New Jersey to Pennsylvania.

2. That narrative will be a little emphasized because southern New Jersey is almost entirely in the Philadelphia media market. It will be non-national political news relevant to both parts of the the Philly media market.

3. Corruption is the sort of thing that suppresses Democrat-leaning independent turnout in formerly Republican suburbs in Bucks and Montgomery countes, and, to a lesser extent, in Chester and Delaware counties. And the South Philly turnout operation that Fumo was so effective at selling is probably somewhat reduced in effectiveness. Democrats can't win statewide without huge margins out of southeast Pennsylvania. You couldn't build a better script for reducing those margins.

Grab the popcorn. This will be fun to watch.

Vote at your own risk? DOJ Dismisses Charges Against Black Panthers

 

 bp1

bp3

 

This past Presidential Election, uniformed, baton swinging thugs were caught on video intimidating voters at a polling place in Philadelphia while hurling racial threats and insults at both black and white voters (see here, here). After investigating the incident, and before the change in Administrations, the Civil Rights Division of DOJ filed a complaint against the New Black Panther Party and several of its members for violations of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.  That Section prohibits any “attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce” any voter and those aiding voters.

Neither the New Black Panther Party nor its members responded to the complaint.  As a result, the federal district court ordered the Division to file a motion for a default judgment against the Party and its members.  When a defendant doesn’t respond to a lawsuit, this is what happens.  By this time, however, the new Administration had taken charge.  Instead of filing for a default judgment against the Party and its members, the Division VOLUNTARILY moved to dismiss the charges against the Black Panther Party and two of its members. 

In other words, the Division voluntarily dismissed an uncontentested lawsuit against an individual who, by the terms of its own complaint, had “made statements containing racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals” and who “made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.” One member, Jerry Jackson, is an elected member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher. (See Jackson in an interview with FoxNews here).

The Division sought relief only against one member who carried and waived a baton on election day, and sought only to enjoin him from “displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling loaction” in Philadelphia.  Nothing about ”statements containing racial threats and racial insults” or  ”menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.” 

These actions raise a number of troubling questions.  For example, why did the Civil Rights Division voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit that they had effectively already won, against defendants who were physically threatening voters?  Is the Division concerned that this dismissal will encourage the New Black Panther Party, or other groups, to intimidate voters?  Why did the Division seek such limited relief against a defendant who was actually carrying and brandishing a weapon at a polling station on election day?

bp21

cross posted at www.electionjournal.org

Syndicate content