Clinton Fields Planted Questions

I haven’t paid real close attention to presidential campaign rhetoric, but one of the talking points I recall Senator Hillary Clinton using–repeatedly–at the last debate was that we should elect her because she would “fight” for us voters. In fact, she said it so often it seemed as if this was the only reason we should vote for her. She’s fought Bush and she will keep fighting.
Well, Senator, if this is your way of showing us how you confront adversity, you’re doing it wrong:

After a tour, the candidate [Clinton] took questions from the crowd.
She called on a young woman. “As a young person,” said the well-spoken Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, “I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”
“Well, you should be worried,” Clinton replied. “You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it’s usually young people that ask me about global warming.”
There’s a good reason for that, too. The question was a plant, totally rigged in advance, like a late-night infomercial. Just before the public forum a Clinton staffer had chosen the young woman, a student at Grinnell College, and asked her to ask that specific question.

Arranging for staged punches isn’t exactly the hallmark of a champion fighter.
I’m not totally unsympathetic to campaigns wanting to focus their message on campaign events. And if I was a candidate I’d probably grow weary of fielding lame questions at such events. But if the Clinton campaign felt they had to set something up, couldn’t they have at least generated an interesting question? That wasn’t even as creative as a fake FEMA press conference.
What’s up with all the “fighter” talk, anyway? I think this is the Clinton campaign’s cleaver way of trying to mask her high negative numbers. People don’t like her because she is so effective in combating Republican ideology, the excuse goes.
That would be nice if it were true. Unfortunately, I think there’s much more to her unfavorable numbers than that. And this kind of story only perpetuates the notion that Clinton isn’t a straight shooter.

Rightists: Google Not “Patriotic” Enough

What can right wing bloggers do while waiting to rehash their “war on Christmas” foolishness? Gin up bogus outrage about how someone recognizes another holiday.
According to this L.A. Times article, some people have been getting bent out of shape over–of all things–the decorative logos Google occasionally features on holidays or to commemorate historic events. According to these people, Google hasn’t been patriotic enough in its use of logos.
Frankly, I think you’ve got to be awfully bored to be keeping track of Google’s logo usage. But if you want to fault Google for having skipped Memorial and Veteran’s Days, while recognizing most other major holidays, that’s a fair–though trivial–criticism.
Remarkably, it’s gotten far sillier than that:

[L]ast week’s decision to honor the 50th anniversary of the Sputnik launch — the second “g” in Google was replaced with a drawing of the Soviet satellite — is being blasted by some conservatives.
Not only did Google honor an achievement by a totalitarian regime that was our Cold War enemy, they griped, but it did so without having ever altered its logo to commemorate U.S. military personnel on Memorial Day or Veterans Day.
“It’s a kick to your belly,” said conservative blogger Giovanni Gallucci, 39, a social media consultant from Dallas. “I understand these guys are scientists and engineers and they have their quirks and want to make sure people are recognized who might not normally be recognized . . . but why not celebrate the struggles that we’ve come through as a people?”

“Kick to you belly”? How much more petty can one get? We’re not even in the Cold War anymore, are we? Is Soviet Union bashing still mandatory?
Whether because of this pressure or otherwise, yesterday [Veteran’s Day] Google did have a special logo featuring WWI-era helmets. Hopefully the search engine police were able to sleep easier last night.

Political Risks Of Combating Global Warming

Juliet Eilperin has an article in today’s Washington Post which outlines the risks inherent in campaigning on a platform to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In a nutshell, calling for changes which cost consumers money (at least in the near term) is not the best strategy to win votes.
From the piece:

According to energy expert Tracy Terry’s analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.

I don’t know if Ms. Terry has been paying attention to energy prices lately, but they’ve been increasing at a faster rate than that, without any new regulations. Frankly, this is a reason I’ve been ambivalent towards imposing an additional carbon tax to reduce emissions. Nature is in the process of imposing its own “tax” as energy supplies fail to keep pace with demand. Oil is poised to rise above $100/barrel and beyond. How much can we expect drivers to shell out? Do we really want to add another tax as gasoline rises to $4 or $5 a gallon? At some point you have to worry about the impact high energy prices will have on the economy. This is a more immediate problem which I think Democratic candidates should be focusing on.

Solar Power in Germany

Thanks to a high electricity prices and a generous renewable energy law, solar energy is a booming growth industry in Germany:

Even though millions of Germans flee their damp, dark homeland for holidays in the Mediterranean sun, 55 percent of the world’s photovoltaic (PV) power is generated on solar panels set up between the Baltic Sea and the Black Forest.
So far just 3 percent of Germany’s electricity comes from the sun, but the government wants to raise the share of renewables to 27 percent of all energy by 2020 from 13 percent.
It is a thriving industry with booming exports that has created tens of thousands of jobs in recent years, posting growth rates that surpassed the optimistic forecasts made by the fathers of a pioneering 2000 renewable energy law.

I don’t know whether or not it’s wise to adopt the German incentive model here in America. Many people couldn’t afford it if we doubled electric rates. But Germany is demonstrating what we are capable of doing if we mobilize to change our energy paradigm.
If cloudy Germany can harness the sun’s energy, we can certainly do it in the Southeast.
Here’s a clip from PBS’ Nova which examines German solar energy:

Potpourri II

  • Church must pay:

    A federal jury in Baltimore, Maryland, Wednesday awarded $10.9 million to a father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by members of a fundamentalist church carrying signs blaming soldiers’ deaths on America’s tolerance of homosexuals.

    It’s low grade to protest at just about any funeral, much less ones of killed soldiers. I suspect the public was overwhelmingly on the Marine’s family in this case. But I wonder about the jury’s basis for the award. $2.9 million for compensatory damages? $8 million for punitive damages? That’s a hefty price for a public demonstration. Better to err on the side of caution when it comes to punishing speech.

  • Ewww:

    Ashley Olsen has a new, older man. The 21-year-old twin showed up to the Rose Bar at the Gramercy Park Hotel Monday night with Tory Burch’s ex, Lance Armstrong, 36. Our bar spy said, “They came together with a group of friends. Ashley drank red wine, sat on his lap and they were making out all night. They left together around 2 a.m.”

    I know we all have different tastes, and perhaps my non-attraction to the Olsen twins is coloring my view here, but 36 and 21? Can’t Lance, a public ambassador, find someone closer to his own age?

  • A principal at a Massachusetts high school implements several measures, including a yoga class, in an effort to reduce student stress. The rightist reaction is predictably pathetic:

    Bit by bit, the dumbed-down cult of mediocrity, secular extremism, and multicultural madness has infected American public education. Instead of concentrating on the basics and then teaching children to manage and conquer their “stress” through internal discipline, we’re removing every last source of possible damage to their egos.

    I’m not sure what this has to do with multiculturalism or “secular extremism.” Whatever.
    If you want to fault something, fault the method, not the objective. I think a more effective use of school time would be to do something involving exercise, since kids don’t get enough of it these days. That will combat stress and obesity.

  • Heh.

    Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They’re not sure what time it is, because it’s dark and they can’t read their watches. They think it’s nearly dinner time, cause they’re starting to feel hungry. But they’re not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!

    It’s just a matter of time before we’ll have a lot of new oil created.

Potpourri

The Federal Reserve announces a decision on interest rates today, so a few economic notes:

  • The 3rd quarter GDP is announced at a stronger than expected 3.9%. But consider this:

    Despite rising worries about commodity prices, the GDP price index, the broadest measure of price changes in the economy, rose just 0.8% annualized, matching a nine-year low. Inflation hasn’t been lower since John F. Kennedy’s administration.

    Bonddad says the report should raise eyebrows because deflators are usually over 2%.

  • Macro and Other Market Musings notes the regional differences in United States economic growth. The Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia has a U.S. map showing the latest monthly coincident index for each state. In September Tennessee had between 0.1% and 0.5% growth.
  • The Big Picture has a map showing state by state mortgage loan performance. The Tennessee number of delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures improved at 0% – 5% rate over the past 12 months.

Elsewhere: