Air Conditioning in the desert

Yeah, I know I haven't been around much. Since I moved locations, the government internet blockage has gotten more strict, so that my blog (as well as many others) is now blocked from my government computer. Funny that I can get to this page to draft a post, but I can't actually go look at the finished product.

Anyway, I saw this article about how much it costs to provide A/C for the troops over there and it brought me back to some thoughts I had during my deployments. My first deployment was to al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The walk to my workplace went past a row of generators and I remember smelling gasoline or diesel fuel and wondering about the cost. At the same time, I remember being there about 4 months and I'm quite sure I could count on one hand the number of days when it was overcast or cloudy. Almost always, it was a clear blue sky. Considering the abundance of sun, I asked myself at the time, why aren't we investing in a little solar energy for the base? Of course, I had no idea how much it cost. The article focuses on the cost of getting fuel to Afghanistan, so maybe it's not so bad getting it to Qatar or Iraq. Is it the projected permanence (or lack thereof) that argues against such a course. I can see not doing it in Afghanistan, if it's not sunny enough or we don't expect to be there long term (although with a 10+ year war, maybe we need to redefine "long term"). Maybe even Iraq is a problem, although it's plenty sunny there too I can tell you. But in Qatar, it seems like we're there for the long haul. I noticed huge, costly improvements and additions on that base on my visit there in 2010, especially as compared to my time there in 2007. I say install some solar on the base and cut the oil consumption by 1/3 or more.

Debt Ceiling

I hear that John Boehner has decided that the GOP position on agreeing to raise the debt limit is that first there must be spending cuts of up to $2 trillion. Kevin Drum has a take on that. But when I heard the story this morning on NPR during my drive into work, something slightly different came to mind.

So here's how it came across in the story this morning. Boehner acknowledges that raising the debt limit is an absolute must. It'd be catastrophic if the U.S. defaulted on its debt. So coming from that "it's vital we do something" position, he says he's willing to put everything on the table in the negotiations, as long as everything means all the things that the GOP wants and none of the things that the GOP doesn't want. Because see, Mr. Boehner also made clear that tax increases would be off the table. And that's completely understandable after all. This is another one of those existential problems. Big problems. Huge. We must do something about this (are you listening Wall Street, because I'm not really going to blow up the government just to appease the Tea Party). And U.S. debt comes as a result of spending exceeding revenue (unless I've missed something along the way). So there are actually two ways to lessen or eliminate the debt. Decrease spending or increase revenue. As a general rule, GOPers favor only spending cuts and no tax increases. The Dems, on the other hand, are looking at a combination of both. So how serious are the GOP about this extremely dire situation? So serious that they're willing to consider all of the options that just happen to be in their platform and none of the options that aren't in their platform. This is serious and don't forget courageous stuff.

Reminds me of days gone by. Where the Republicans found another existential threat in the world. They started a war against that threat. Ran up spending like you wouldn't believe (except you would of course 'cause they actually did do this). You know this existential threat called for some shared sacrifice from everybody in the country. Well, except for those with lots of money, because these poor put upon people couldn't be called upon to pay a penny more for this increase in government spending. No, actually they needed to pay a lot, lot less. So the Republicans managed to cut taxes (and, yes, revenues) at the same time as they were ramping up their war spending.

I'm beginning to think that the GOP doesn't really understand what an "existential threat" is.

2012 Presidential Election musings

I'm on the record as believing that President Obama will be reelected in 2012. That's not a tough call, as I'm a partisan Democrat and he's an incumbent. Still, if the economy doesn't improve greatly, it might be a close contest. Another factor in whether it'll be close is his Republican opponent. They all have flaws, but some are in really bad shape. I don't think the other party will be silly enough to nominate Trump or Palin or Paul (either of them). If any of those names end up on the ballot, though, Obama wins in a cakewalk. One of the guys I wouldn't want to see on the Republican ticket because he's from the saner side of the party is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. I think he's a little too sane and not well-known enough to get the presidential nomination, but he'd probably be a good (for them) VP candidate. Huntsman's another one I'd put in the "I'll slightly worried about him as a VP candidate" category.

As this article says, Daniels fits the "if we have to have a Republican, this one seems like he'd be better than the others" mold as far as the opinions of Democrats go. Of course, he may not even be able to be the VP candidate on that side since he doesn't stand for continuing the wars on social issues. And he might actually consider not just demolishing Medicare in the name of lower taxes for the rich. (BTW, the line I liked most from this article is the last one - "when it comes to red meat, he seems to be a vegetarian.")

Still, though I can't speak for my fellow liberals, there's no chance I'd opt for Daniels over Obama (or any Dem for that matter). After all, as Matthew Yglesias points out, he did back defunding of Planned Parenthood and voucherizing Indiana's public schools.

A Moment of Unity

In the wake of OBL's death, I don't mind if Obama and the Dems try to take some partisan advantage. In fact, I hope they do. I'm very much of a mind that the Republicans did it 10 years ago, so why shouldn't we. That's very much in the mold of the hardball politics I'd like to see outta my Party. But I'm willing to bet that Obama and the Dems won't use this occasion to cherry-pick some intelligence so that they can send the government into take over a country that has zero to do with OBL or muslim extremism. Just sayin'.

OBL is dead

Great news. Now I'll be waiting for NRO to start posting articles about how it's really Bush's policies that got us here. And really, if it weren't for Obama's policies, we'd have probably gotten him 2 years ago.
UPDATE: OK, maybe not the NRO, but leave it to Mrs. Palin to come through for my prediction.

Income Inequality

Pretty good article from the Economist's DIA blog. I suspect many of the articles I cite with approval from this blog are from this author. Here's the part I like:

I think the rich are getting much, much richer, while regular people (in the developed world, which is what we're talking about here) are at best treading water. I think that wealth brings power, and the fact that the rich are getting much, much richer relative to everyone else means that the rich also exert increasing influence over the economy, government and society. I think income mobility and equality of opportunity have declined in America over the past 40 years, to the point where America is now more segregated by class divisions than many European countries. I think a major reason for these shifts has been the increasing dominance, since the Reagan era, of an ideology that is indifferent to or actively celebrates inequality of income. I think this ideology is bad: bad for the economy, bad for society, bad for art and culture, bad for the moral character of those who subscribe to it.

The Force

Look out South Carolina Republicans - it may be only $50k, but it's the little things that eventually allowed the Emperor to turn Annakin to the Dark Side.