Jeffrey Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University, and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, discusses why California's marijuana legalization initiative, Proposition 19, failed, and proposes a more straightforward argument in support of the drug's legalization
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Bruce Lieberman on climate change and national security
freelance journalist Bruce Lieberman discusses what the U.S. military is doing to plan for a future full of major disruptions caused by climate change, recorded from San Diego, California, on November 12, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
David Plouffe says that technological progess is "a little bit easier when you're not a democracy."
David Plouffe, campaign manager for President Obama in 2008 and, presumably, in 2012, addressed an audience brought together by the Center for Political Communications at the University of Delaware at 4:30 pm PST on November 10, 2010, as part of their National Agenda Series of talks on politics.
Talking about recent innovation in computer technology in China, where the world’s fastest supercomputer was recently unveiled, he said of such progress: “It’s a little bit easier when you’re not a democracy.”
Unsurprisingly, he sounded a lot like President Obama in tone and substance, speaking repeatedly of the need to find “common ground” between Republicans and Democrats. He admitted that the Republicans had a “good night” during the recent elections but said that they could have had a better one. He said it was hard to predict the political future.
Among other things, he said that voters were expressing their unhappiness and anxiety, but not voting for the Republican Party per se. He said the election was a cry for our leaders to get along and try solving problems. He pointed out that Republicans lost about two-thirds of the Latino vote and said that Republicans are divided into three different centers: the House, where they’re in control; the Senate, where they’re not; and, soon, presidential candidates.
President Obama, he said, “will reach out to try to find common ground where he will.” He cited as issues of importance the economy, debt and deficit, immigration reform, energy, and education. He urged leaders to work together, like adults. He said that working together would be good for the country.
Plouffe said he thought that the Republicans would nominate a right-wing extremist for president in 2012, because that’s where the energy and thinking in that party is now. He said that the electorate in 2012 would be 50 to 60 million voters larger than in 2010, and that it would include more young people and more moderate independents and would be more diverse.
The most important dynamic in that election, he said, will be if people think we’re heading in the right direction.
He predicted increased electoral/political volatility even though people are hungry for more intra-party cooperation. If the leaders match the commitment of the voters, we’ll make a lot of progress, he said, predicting that then we’ll have “that wonderful future that our youngsters deserve and need.” We can’t just worry about the next election, he said, although he also said that in elections substance is rarely discussed.
He said he’d like to see 100 candidates like (Delaware Republican Senate nominee) Christine McDonnell, adding that there is not a wide audience for that kind of candidate outside of the Republican Party. There are Republicans in Congress who want to find common ground, he said, but the energy in the Republican Party is with Glenn Beck. For the good of the country we will try to find common ground, he said, but it looks like we’ll get more of Palin, O’Donnell and Rand Paul. Asked by an audience member how he’d modify the President’s 2012 campaign if the Republicans nominated a moderate, he replied that he didn’t think they would.
A spokesperson for the University said on Thursday morning that a video of this talk would soon be online here.
Talking about recent innovation in computer technology in China, where the world’s fastest supercomputer was recently unveiled, he said of such progress: “It’s a little bit easier when you’re not a democracy.”
Unsurprisingly, he sounded a lot like President Obama in tone and substance, speaking repeatedly of the need to find “common ground” between Republicans and Democrats. He admitted that the Republicans had a “good night” during the recent elections but said that they could have had a better one. He said it was hard to predict the political future.
Among other things, he said that voters were expressing their unhappiness and anxiety, but not voting for the Republican Party per se. He said the election was a cry for our leaders to get along and try solving problems. He pointed out that Republicans lost about two-thirds of the Latino vote and said that Republicans are divided into three different centers: the House, where they’re in control; the Senate, where they’re not; and, soon, presidential candidates.
President Obama, he said, “will reach out to try to find common ground where he will.” He cited as issues of importance the economy, debt and deficit, immigration reform, energy, and education. He urged leaders to work together, like adults. He said that working together would be good for the country.
Plouffe said he thought that the Republicans would nominate a right-wing extremist for president in 2012, because that’s where the energy and thinking in that party is now. He said that the electorate in 2012 would be 50 to 60 million voters larger than in 2010, and that it would include more young people and more moderate independents and would be more diverse.
The most important dynamic in that election, he said, will be if people think we’re heading in the right direction.
He predicted increased electoral/political volatility even though people are hungry for more intra-party cooperation. If the leaders match the commitment of the voters, we’ll make a lot of progress, he said, predicting that then we’ll have “that wonderful future that our youngsters deserve and need.” We can’t just worry about the next election, he said, although he also said that in elections substance is rarely discussed.
He said he’d like to see 100 candidates like (Delaware Republican Senate nominee) Christine McDonnell, adding that there is not a wide audience for that kind of candidate outside of the Republican Party. There are Republicans in Congress who want to find common ground, he said, but the energy in the Republican Party is with Glenn Beck. For the good of the country we will try to find common ground, he said, but it looks like we’ll get more of Palin, O’Donnell and Rand Paul. Asked by an audience member how he’d modify the President’s 2012 campaign if the Republicans nominated a moderate, he replied that he didn’t think they would.
A spokesperson for the University said on Thursday morning that a video of this talk would soon be online here.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Congressional supporters of backroom redistricting have nothing to say about their plan's defeat
While most of the U.S. was turning itself over to the tender mercies of the newly-resurgent Republican Party last Tuesday, Californians returned arch-liberal Senator Barbara Boxer to office and re-elected “insider’s knowledge, outsider’s mind” Jerry Brown governor. Also, while pundits were noting the advantage that Republican-controlled state legislatures will now have in terms of being able to gerrymander Congressional districts in states where they are in power, California voters voted, by passing Proposition 20, to expand the writ of the Citizens Redistricting Commission they set up in 2008 to set State Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization districts to include the very Congressional districts that will, in other states, be apportioned on the basis of partisan self-interest.
They also rejected Proposition 27, a blatant power-grab, funded predominantly by Democratic incumbent Congressmembers, to disband the Citizens Redistricting Commission entirely, and give authority to draw legislative districts, both state and federal, back to the hacks (State Assemblymen and Senators) who have done an almost-perfect job (with the help of highly-paid Democratic consultant Michael Berman) of ensuring that no incumbent Democrat or Republican elected will be defeated before his or her time, or that any general election race for these offices in California will be truly competitive.
This state of affairs contributes mightily to the now-endemic cynicism and hostility to politics and politicians that are doing so much to keep the state (and country) from seriously addressing the myriad problems it faces. Surprisingly, Californians voted for Proposition 20 and against Proposition 27 by margins of around 60-40, a decisive statement about how strongly they feel about having politicians pick their voters instead of letting the voters pick their electeds.
A table here shows that several incumbent Democratic California Congressmembers made contributions of $10,000 or more to the campaign to pass Proposition 27 and defeat Proposition 20. These include Congressmembers Lois Capps, Anna Eshoo, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Judy Chu.
Etopia News tried to contact each of these Representatives, as well as California State Senator Alex Padilla, who contributed several times to the Yes on 27/No on 20 campaign, to get their views on why their side lost and what the implications were of California voters decision to expand the power of, rather than disband, the Citizens Redistricting Commission established by Proposition 11 in 2008.
“Ashley,” in the press office of Rep. Lois Capps said she’d get a statement for this article, but hasn’t yet. Ben Bradford, in Rep. Eshoo’s office sent an e-mail saying:
“Thanks for the e-mail. I won’t be able to get anything from Rep. Eshoo until tomorrow at the earliest, and even then, I’m not sure she’ll be able to participate, but I’ll see what I can do and get back to you tomorrow.”
No word from him yet, nor from the offices of Pelosi, Schiff, Chu, or Padilla.
Professor Daniel Lowenstein, who was the official proponent of Proposition 27, didn’t return an e-mail asking for comment.
Nor, as of now, have statements been forthcoming from the Office of Representatives Eshoo or Capps.
They also rejected Proposition 27, a blatant power-grab, funded predominantly by Democratic incumbent Congressmembers, to disband the Citizens Redistricting Commission entirely, and give authority to draw legislative districts, both state and federal, back to the hacks (State Assemblymen and Senators) who have done an almost-perfect job (with the help of highly-paid Democratic consultant Michael Berman) of ensuring that no incumbent Democrat or Republican elected will be defeated before his or her time, or that any general election race for these offices in California will be truly competitive.
This state of affairs contributes mightily to the now-endemic cynicism and hostility to politics and politicians that are doing so much to keep the state (and country) from seriously addressing the myriad problems it faces. Surprisingly, Californians voted for Proposition 20 and against Proposition 27 by margins of around 60-40, a decisive statement about how strongly they feel about having politicians pick their voters instead of letting the voters pick their electeds.
A table here shows that several incumbent Democratic California Congressmembers made contributions of $10,000 or more to the campaign to pass Proposition 27 and defeat Proposition 20. These include Congressmembers Lois Capps, Anna Eshoo, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Judy Chu.
Etopia News tried to contact each of these Representatives, as well as California State Senator Alex Padilla, who contributed several times to the Yes on 27/No on 20 campaign, to get their views on why their side lost and what the implications were of California voters decision to expand the power of, rather than disband, the Citizens Redistricting Commission established by Proposition 11 in 2008.
“Ashley,” in the press office of Rep. Lois Capps said she’d get a statement for this article, but hasn’t yet. Ben Bradford, in Rep. Eshoo’s office sent an e-mail saying:
“Thanks for the e-mail. I won’t be able to get anything from Rep. Eshoo until tomorrow at the earliest, and even then, I’m not sure she’ll be able to participate, but I’ll see what I can do and get back to you tomorrow.”
No word from him yet, nor from the offices of Pelosi, Schiff, Chu, or Padilla.
Professor Daniel Lowenstein, who was the official proponent of Proposition 27, didn’t return an e-mail asking for comment.
Nor, as of now, have statements been forthcoming from the Office of Representatives Eshoo or Capps.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Dale Jones makes the case for Proposition 19
Dales Jones, spokesperson for "Yes on Proposition 19," explains, defends, and advocates for the passage of this initiative to legalize the possession and tax the sale of marijuana in California, recorded from Oakland, California, on October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Etopia News hosts a debate on Props. 20 & 27
Derek Cressman of Common Cause supports Prop. 20 and opposes Prop. 27 while Michael Wagaman of the California Democratic Party opposes Prop. 20 and supports Prop. 27 in a remotely-recorded video debate hosted by Etopia News, recorded on October 27, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Senator Sanders seeks to clarify the law on FITs
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has introduced S. 3923, the “Let the States Innovate on Sustainable Energy Act of 2010,’’ in order to clarify certain provisions in existing law that might stand in the way of individual states implementing feed-in tariffs in their jurisdictions.
According to Senator Sanders, “At a time when we are working to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and create green jobs, we should be encouraging states and local governments to pursue innovative sustainable energy policies, not stifling their progress."
The bill borrows language from an already-passed provision, Section 102, of HR 2454, the big climate change bill approved by the House of Representatives but not considered by the Senate.
Senator Sanders, an independent senator who caucuses with the Democratic majority in the Senate, is supporting this clarifying language for two reasons, according to an aide. First, from a Vermont-centric perspective, because his state is implementing a 50MW feed-in tariff and he wants it clear that it is entitled to do so. Second, from a national perspective, the senator is a big supporter of renewable energy and he wants to help individual states move ahead in that area.
The bill exists now on a stand-alone basis, but the Senator mostly hopes to get it enacted as an amendment to other energy legislation that may be acted upon during the upcoming lame duck session of Congress, in November and December, 2010. Failing that, he is likely to re-introduce it early in the new year in the new Congress, starting in the Energy Committee, of which he is currently a member.
His office has had preliminary discussions with Senator Bingaman’s office about including this provision in the pending RES (Renewable Electricity Standard) legislation sponsored by the New Mexico senator. It’s not likely, though, that that will happen since that bill’s sponsors seem determined to stick exactly to language already approved by the Senate Energy Committee and hence will not allow amendments to their proposed law.
Introduced by Senator Sanders on September 29th, the “Let the States Innovate on Sustainable Energy Act of 2010’’ already has a number of co-sponsors, including Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, his fellow Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.
According to his aide, no organized opposition to the bill has yet appeared. Strong support for this legislation, he said, is coming from the FIT Coalition, the Clean Energy Group (based in Montpelier, Vermont), and VPIRG, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.
According to Senator Sanders, “At a time when we are working to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and create green jobs, we should be encouraging states and local governments to pursue innovative sustainable energy policies, not stifling their progress."
The bill borrows language from an already-passed provision, Section 102, of HR 2454, the big climate change bill approved by the House of Representatives but not considered by the Senate.
Senator Sanders, an independent senator who caucuses with the Democratic majority in the Senate, is supporting this clarifying language for two reasons, according to an aide. First, from a Vermont-centric perspective, because his state is implementing a 50MW feed-in tariff and he wants it clear that it is entitled to do so. Second, from a national perspective, the senator is a big supporter of renewable energy and he wants to help individual states move ahead in that area.
The bill exists now on a stand-alone basis, but the Senator mostly hopes to get it enacted as an amendment to other energy legislation that may be acted upon during the upcoming lame duck session of Congress, in November and December, 2010. Failing that, he is likely to re-introduce it early in the new year in the new Congress, starting in the Energy Committee, of which he is currently a member.
His office has had preliminary discussions with Senator Bingaman’s office about including this provision in the pending RES (Renewable Electricity Standard) legislation sponsored by the New Mexico senator. It’s not likely, though, that that will happen since that bill’s sponsors seem determined to stick exactly to language already approved by the Senate Energy Committee and hence will not allow amendments to their proposed law.
Introduced by Senator Sanders on September 29th, the “Let the States Innovate on Sustainable Energy Act of 2010’’ already has a number of co-sponsors, including Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, his fellow Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.
According to his aide, no organized opposition to the bill has yet appeared. Strong support for this legislation, he said, is coming from the FIT Coalition, the Clean Energy Group (based in Montpelier, Vermont), and VPIRG, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
