|
Arizona's First Political Blog
E-mail Anonymous Mike at zonitics4-at-yahoo.com By Anonymous Mike, pseudonymously.
Archives
Links
Center
War Coverage
|
Friday, February 29, 2008
Trail of Tears What do you call a paper that: Smears the dead before the body is cold? Who thinks it is okay to throw out thinly sourced pieces that besmirch the integrity of people? Takes quotes out of context and in order to completely twist their meaning? Would you call that paper a supermarket tabloid? Or the Arizona Republic? Take the thinly sourced piece bit. Last Friday, the Republic in an editorial took on the NY Times-McCain story. Last week the New York Times wrote an “expose” on the interaction of presumed Republican nominee John McCain and a lobbyist representing a media company. The article insinuated both a romantic relationship and improper intervention by McCain with the FCC on the behalf of the lobbyist. The article was not only written as the Republic admits “upon a narrow range of facts” but was based upon interactions which happened 8 years ago and relied almost exclusively on anonymous sourcing. Those interactions, as the article noted, were viewed as inappropriate by McCain staffers if only because they would fuel articles like the one published by the Times. However to the Republic such shaky ground is okay because “if the story has merit, it will grow large. If it doesn't, it will disappear.” That’s responsible journalism? To throw out accusations of infidelity and corruption against the presumptive Republican nominee based on anonymous sources of events 8 years ago and see what sticks? This seems less like the product of the “profession of journalism” and more like gossipy teenagers. Note at the end of the piece the Republic calls the American voter the final judge and jury of the veracity of the NY Times story. Court rooms have better standards then that. Turn to the quotes and the smearing of the dead. Today, Arizona editorial writer Linda Valdez writes in a “quick hit” on the op-ed page: William F. Buckley Jr. was an intelligent and accomplished man. But I have to wonder about all the laudatory comments that credit him with providing the intellectual underpinnings of the conservative movement. This is the same movement that put George W. Bush in the White House and carried us into what John McCain says may be a 100-year war in Iraq. Buckley left his mark. But the end result of what he started is nothing to inspire pride. I have written before on the problem of the quick hit format; the quote above is the entire piece that wrote Valdez for today’s paper. The limited space available is more of a bumper sticker to provoke and annoy than room to provide some carefully provided thoughts to the paper’s readership. However look more closely at what Ms. Valdez wrote. Don’t like Mr. Buckley the man? Don’t like the ideas? Ms. Valdez is probably not alone. However there is something uncouth about speaking ill of the dead before the body is buried, well serial mass murderers excepted. On top of that, if Ms. Valdez took some time she would fine many laudatory comments from across the political spectrum, no doubt from people who knew Mr. Buckley and his work far better than Ms. Valdez. Now let’s look at some of those quotes: ...John McCain says may be a 100-year war in Iraq. The key McCain quote in this regard was: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day." As McCain himself noted, American troops have remained in Korea for more than 50 years after the armistice and more than 60 years in Germany and Japan after the end of WW II. No one has said WW II is a “60 year war” or Korea “50 years” because we still have troops in the former combat zones. This is the same movement that put George W. Bush in the White House and carried us into what John McCain says may be a 100-year war in Iraq. Anyone with a passing interest in Mr. Buckley’s work and his ideas would notice that he didn’t think of the Republican Party and modern American conservatism as one in the same. Pick up an issue of Buckley’s National Review or check out a few days of posting at the magazine’s blog The Corner and you will see a vigorous debate on the connection between not only the GOP and conservatives but also between the conservatives and President Bush. That latter debate has been in effect for almost 8 years and the link between conservatives and McCain is even more tenuous. Thinly sourced attack pieces as part of voter education, smearing the dead and misrepresenting their work, and misquoting politicians in a style that would make a Democrat proud… yes the work of professional journalists as represented at the Republic. Thursday, February 28, 2008
WFB and Me I was a little late to the William F. Buckley party. No it wasn't because I had some sort of radical phase or that; if I did it must have been over by the 6th grade. Rather it was because I started on my political road backwards. I was introduced to conservatism through Reagan and then in reading history, I became aware of Goldwater. It was only later, much later, reading through my brother's copies of National Review that I got to know Mr. Buckley. Even then it took a long time to understand his impact. Sure I "knew" how he was one of, if not the, founding lights of modern American conservatism but I didn't understand his special genius till much later. I was at a board meeting on a college campus and being bored to tears I took advantage of an incoming cell phone call to go out for an extended walk. I ended up in the library and as I wandered the shelves my eye fell on Buckley's "God and Man at Yale." It had been decades since I had read it, I was in no rush to get back, and so I sat down with it and began to read. That's when the special genius of Buckley hit me, the genius of a pioneer. At the time Buckley wrote the book, American political thought was dominated by the ideas of progressive statism and the New Deal. Conservatism, if it registered on the national radar screen at all, was delineated as reactionary or Tory; the idea that even after the moment of Creation a conservative would want to revert to what was before. Buckley changed that. He not only changed conservatism by fusing it with elements of libertarianism, by making it international in foreign policy, he changed it by making conservatism a positive and active force in American political life. Without Buckley standing up against the tide in the 1950s and seeing a future that was different than the present, there would have been no Reagan. It's simple to look at a landscape and improve it here and there It takes something else to look at a landscape and not only imagine something completely different but to articulate that vision and help make it happen. Through his genius, his vision, and his grace (take some time to read the tributes from the other side of the political aisle) he was an American original. Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunshine of My Love Over a late afternoon coffee and whiskey, a good friend of mine reviewed his criticisms of the Solana solar deal that I linked to last week: 1) As solar thermal energy (the type of solar technology used at Solana) has much lower operational costs than traditional power plants, the trick to making the project work from an investment perspective is to manage the cost of money in the construction of the plant itself. His point is that while the APS contract is valuable, in order to show a guaranteed cash flow to both secure and pay off loans, the critical part to making the project work is the federal tax credit that would pay 30% of the construction costs. 2) While we discussed the high cost of electricity of Solana, he noted the kicker; APS fully expects government regulation through cap and trade of carbon that would make Solana electricity price competitive. He then added (and I'm paraphrasing as the 3rd Maker's mark was taking hold), "Government money to make plant construction profitable, government regulations to make the the produced electricity cost competitive.... does this make solar power a special interest?" His final point was the best one. He notes that each proposed energy alternative to taking oil out of the ground has a down side. Biomass is not an efficient source of energy and takes up cropland that could otherwise be used for food production. Wind farms take up space, deface the landscape, and chop up birds. Solar energy is expensive and takes up tons of space. Nuclear energy is over-regulated, has a waste disposal problem, and everyone is scared stiff of the stuff after 30 years of scare mongering. Coal produces gobs of carbon and sulfur; the good stuff that doesn't is largely locked up under Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Tar sands and oil shale involves large scale strip mining. Do I need need to mention hydro? Each proposed technology has a definite downside in terms of environmental impact. Given the neat intersection of government regulation and subsidy, the ability of environmentalists to tie up various projects across the country through litigation and special interest politics, and the current hysteria of environmentalist alarmism my companion wonders if any technology would be seen as "acceptable." He notes that the progress of human civilization is directly tied to the use of stored energy and that the acquisition and use of that energy has always had an environmental impact. What politician, he wonders, will be an adult and stand up for cheap and available energy? Saturday, February 23, 2008
Step Up Buttercup Last month when I wrote about former AZ Republic columnist Jon Talton's new blog, I was criticized in a few e-mails for my "obession." My dislike of Mr. Talton's view is well known by old readers of this blog and his writings at the Republic made for easy pickings. My critics now asked since the man moved to Seattle, what was my point in dredging him up? Well I have written about him once. However you can take a man out of the Valley, but apparently you cannot the Valley out of the man. Despite being long gone from our community, he just cannot stop writing about it with the majority of his February posts either directly about the Valley or various figures from here. When he lived here, I could always qualify my critique by offering the charitable interpretation that he was trying to make the community he lived in better. In fact that view was the defense offered by many of his supporters that I encountered both in the media and in the general public. So what did he do when he left his job at the Republic? He took the massive equity he built up in his house due to the run-up in real estate prices and left town; he cashed out. When you live in a community, whether you rent or buy, you have a stake in it. You have stake in its economy, in its perception by outsiders, and even in your neighbors. The community also defines you; if you encounter something in the area you don't like, say graffiti or a new housing development, how you react to it and the steps you take does have an impact on you. Do you ignore the issue or it let it fester in your soul? Do you attempt to understand the issue and perhaps come to terms with it? Do you seek to correct it? In other words do you become a passive victim or do you act like a citizen? If you grow tired of an area and decide to throw in the towel and move elsewhere then so be it. Residency isn't a prison sentence and the great thing about this country is mobility and there is something in this great land for everybody. However when you leave, you are no longer a citizen... you become an outsider, the future of the community belongs to its residents, to those who choose to have a stake. Mr. Talton chose to give up that stake. That is why to those here in the Valley of whom I am critical; the various policy gurus and politicians, the so-called activists I can always say... they live here and they are trying to make it a better place. I may not agree with them but I know they are trying to improve the community they love enough to live in. Unless he somehow becomes relevant, by either showing up here in the Valley or someone here explicitly using his ideas, I won't be writing about him again. Promise. Thursday, February 21, 2008
Post of the Day Well despite the fact it was actually from last week, from Coyote Blog analyzing a map show internal migration patterns among the various states as determined by moving van use: Unfortunately, it appears that our next president will be from Illinois or New York, two of the eight states the local government has screwed up so bad that no one wants to do business there any more. I guess both Hillary and Obama can claim that their states have licked the immigration problem bay increasing taxes and regulation so much that no one wants to come to their states any more. Shine on You Crazy Diamond Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun. - Montgomery Burns Well no not really, I just wanted to use that quote and since I am going to write about solar power, well no time like the present. Front page article in the Arizona Republic, splattered clear across the page like a pigeon on a windshield; Plant to brighten state's solar future . The article is full of delicious yum-yums meant to warm the cockles of environmentalists and those who yearn for Arizona and Phoenix to be "world-class." A solar-energy plant planned near Gila Bend will be among the world's largest when it opens in 2011, Arizona Public Service Co. said Wednesday.... ....At 280 megawatts, enough to power at least 70,000 households, the plant will make even more energy than a similar facility announced in December. ....This is a turning point for APS and the future of the state of Arizona as we move to become the solar capital of the world," APS President Don Brandt said, estimating the Solana plant will cost more than $1 billion and cover 3 square miles. You getting giddy? I know I am. However when you read further, that feeling turns from giddy to that same feeling you get when you open that electric bill right after the most recent summer heat wave. APS will pay about 14 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour from natural-gas plants at peak demand.... ...In 2006, state regulators tried to spur development by enacting a renewable-energy standard requiring that utilities get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Brandt said APS would buy energy from Solana even without the mandate. "Absolutely," he said. "This makes economic and operational sense." How in the heck does it make economic and operational sense to switch to supplies that will jack up the price of your product by 40%? For that you have to read the end of the article If the Arizona Corporation Commission approves the project, the next hurdle appears to be the U.S. incentive program. If a tax credit for solar-power plants is not renewed, Solana will not happen, Seage said. So it only makes "economic and operational sense" for the utility to engage in these transactions if they are subsidized by taxpayers. Presumably the 40% increase in the price of electricity comes after the taxpayer subsidy, so they this project will cost you twice; a 30% investment credit as it is being built and in your monthly electrical bill. Keep in mind 280 megawatts isn't much, both the Palo Verde nuclear plant and the Santan generating stations produce around 1.2 gigawatts. As the article mentions, the 280 megawatts only covers the predicted annual increase in electricity consumption so to keep the love coming, you will need new Solanas with more taxpayer subsidy and higher electrical prices. Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Separated at Birth? Food Network star Rachel Ray and Jack Nicholson as The Joker or is it just the Maker's Mark talking? I Like My Bubble Sub-Prime Following up on my piece from the other day on land-use restrictions and high cost of housing, here's a post linking zoning restrictions to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Sunday, February 17, 2008
Slammin' the Door Getting caught up on my reading, found this link from Instapundit.... "Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher" That's a boatload of equity and it stems from regulating the supply of land available for housing. Crack open a political economy textbook and you'll find alot of discussion about "rent-seeking," that is the creation of individual or corporate wealth through manipulation of the legal or regulatory environment. Seems like Seattle has shown the way to greater wealth for those of us who already own single-family houses. The concept of using political contributions and lobbyists to derive government benefits is already well established (see John Murtha or Tom DeLay.) How about we take it one step further and pool together contributions from among the hundreds of thousands of existing house owners in the Valley, we could organize on the neighborhood or HOA level, in order to fund ballot initiatives and lobbyists. We could then push to tighten the supply of land for new housing, either through state land or planning restrictions, which would make our existing houses that much more valuable. You would claim that pursing higher house values would restrict the supply of affordable housing... tom-a-to, to-mah-toe. Blah, blah, blah. If you push me on it I'll just we 're doing it for the environment and to prevent urban sprawl or the promotion of new urbanism or whatever. Yeah that's the ticket. Saturday, February 16, 2008
Conversations on a Plane While I was on a plane earlier in the week, the guy in the seat next to me told me that Congressman Shadegg had announced his retirement. After a few minutes of expressing our mutual surprise and fond memories of Shadegg, the conversation then turned to who would try and succeed him. The first person my seatmate suggested was Phoenix Mayor Gordon. My initial reaction was "No way, he just got re-elected." Well you know the rest of the story. Mayor Gordon quickly announced he wasn't interested in the position... yes no one thought he would run. However when I got home and checked both the newspapers and Gordon's official statement, I noticed something missing. Nobody said it was inappropriate for an elected official, who was barely a month into his new term, to start running for another office. I know a good politician is always looking for the next rung up the ladder but I still think they're cleaning up from Gordon's inauguration. You Guys are So Sweet After a few weeks on the road, I get back home and find this.... ....and this It's nice to be missed, perhaps not nice for me to leave the blog dark for a few weeks at a time, but nice to be missed. Sorry for the absence(s). Sometimes life intervenes and blogging is just not going to happen. Triage and all of that. Those times should get fewer and fewer but they are going to happen. I'm not going to promise the 3 posts of day of old but if you check back every day or 2, I do promise some new content... even if it's just shadow puppet theater. |
