Blog 2.1

Brain Terminal has a snarky post today about the emerging nanny state in the United States. I’ll be investing in bubble wrap companies.

A major media outlet is telling the other side of the story when it comes to the energy debate in our country - Newsweek no less. One of my favorite lines:

“Our largest foreign source of oil is turbulent Canada. Our second largest is Mexico, which is experiencing turbulence because of the soaring cost of tortillas. They are made from corn, which is … well, read on.”

The topic of energy in our country is quickly becoming too frustrating to bother with. There is no easy answer, but the debate (or “shouting match” as you might want to call it now) is becoming so polarized and devoid of real content that it is beginning to resemble Congress. The politics of energy have skewed the facts of the matter so dramatically that no one seems to know what is going on any more. Can anyone provide proof that ethanol is a viable net energy-saver compared to petroleum? That the effect of using corn for energy won’t have a significant and detrimental effect on global food needs? (Ask Mexico about that one.) That the gross neglect of other biofuel products is not being ignored because the corn lobby is showering money on Washington? (Google “algae biomass” to see what your tax money should be funding.) Or how about that even if someone were to come up with a wonderful new energy solution, would they be silenced by both the oil and agriculture industries?

I’m tired of walking around in a maze of misinformation. Does anyone know where the exit is?

Wednesday’s post regarding a controversial bill in the US Senate got me more comments this week than I usually get in a month. Today there is more news about this bill: the bit requiring “grassroots” political bloggers to register and report to Congress as lobbyists has been struck from the bill.

Worth noting, however, is that I discovered more detail about how the bill defines “grassroots lobbying firm”:

(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm’ means a person or entity that–

(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and

(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.’.

As such, it appears the bill was targeted at such things as radio talk shows funded by advertisers (thus the Republican opposition) and other “astroturfers” (think fake grassroots). It would not, however, target media funded by contributors like MoveOn.org.

Would this section of the bill been a positive element if it had been retained? I still think it’s hard to say. Personally, if the bill was supposed to target “astroturfing” then I think it should have done so more clearly. As it was written, however, the bill seemed to target the activities of one party and not the other (which explains the partisan split on the vote).

For anyone from Missouri who’s counting, Kit Bond (and the rest of the Senate Republicans) voted to remove the controversial section of the bill. Newly elected Senator Claire McCaskill (and all but seven Democrats) voted to keep the section in.

I might have to install a virtual velvet rope at the entrance to my blog. I discovered today that the first bill introduced to the Senate this year (the one that is officially supposed to “provide greater transparency in the legislative process”) has a well-hidden side effect: Bloggers with a readership of over 500 people must register with and report quarterly to Congress, or else. Or else what, you ask? That’s what amendment 7 (passed on January 7) of the bill clarifies: it creates criminal penalties, including up to a year in prison, if someone “knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.”

So there you have it. If this bill passes, citizens will have to register and report to the Congress if they want to publicly discuss policy. Don’t believe me? Look it up for yourself.

You can find the contact information for your Senator here. If you like reading or writing political blogs, I suggest you contact your representative and explain to them what the First Amendment is all about.

Remember the Democrats’ promise that they were going to clean up Congress? One of the major changes was going to be the return to the five-day work week. Let’s take a look at how well that’s going…

First week in session: Congress convenes on Thursday, but the Senate takes Friday off.

Second week in session: The Congress does not meet on Monday so that your elected representatives can watch the NCAA football championship.

Third week in session: The Congress does not meet on Monday in observance of MLK Day.

Fourth week in session: The House will not meet on Thursday or Friday because of a yearly Republican retreat.

Fifth week in session: The House will not meet on Thursday or Friday because of a yearly Democrat retreat.

It will be interesting to see what excuses they come up with in February. Groundhog Day? Lincoln’s birthday? Valentine’s Day? Presidents’ Day? Washington’s birthday? Forget holidays, maybe there will be another big sports event they need to take off work for (remember, we still pay them the same amount if they go to work or not).

So maybe the five-day work week thing didn’t go as well as they thought it might. We’ve still got other promises, right? Remember the promises to fix the skyrocketing price of a college education? Read the legislation they came up with for that – lowering the interest rate of only unsubsidized loans (by charging banks higher fees and transferring more risk to them). Someone needs to explain to me how this helps… at all. The Democrats championed their cause as a fight for the middle class, but many middle class families are not eligible for unsubsidized loans. Keep in mind that during the 100-hours campaign last year they didn’t specify that only subsidized loan rates would be reduced. Additionally, increasing the risk to lenders is only going to make them less willing to lend to students – they’ll just shift their business to another market like home or car loans. Ultimately this does nothing to address the high cost of higher education; it just invites people to throw more money into an already bloated system. $40,000 in debt is still $40,000 in debt. The interest rate doesn’t matter much when you still have to be up to your ears in debt when you’re 22. I can’t say I’m surprised – Nancy Pelosi says the House gavel is “in the hands of America’s children.” She clearly has no problem with future generations being in perpetual debt – which would explain the Democrats’ proposed 1+ trillion dollar health care plan back in 2003.

But perhaps I’m being too critical. I’m sure the House could have come up with much better solutions; they probably just needed a little more time. I guess it will just have to wait for a week when they don’t need to forgo work to watch a football game.