Imperfect Immigration Reform is Better Than None

It is not often that I don’t have anything to add or a bone to pick with an opinion piece in a major newspaper. However, this article on immigration in the Washington Post hit the nail squarely on the head. Well said.

Find the Silver Lining

Last night an unknown person smashed the rear passenger window of my car and stole my iPod, XM radio receiver, and about $400 worth of climbing gear. My car is now in the shop, I am without transportation, and currently unable to participate in one of my favorite hobbies.

One thing I have been working on in the last few years is not getting upset about the things that I can’t change. I may wax about the ineptitude of Congress, the foolish optimism surrounding alternative energy sources, and many other sources of annoyance, but I rarely get angry at them. The same goes for personal issues. I may be angry for a short time, but anger serves no purpose and simply keeps me from moving on.

I can sometimes keep my sanity by finding the silver lining in a bad situation. The most devastating (at the time) thing that happened to me in the last 6 months (being dumped by a partner of 4 years and financee of 16 months) has actually turned out to be a blessing in disguise. I now live in a place where I am much happier, have a social life outside a single relationship, and no longer work at a job I did not enjoy.

I guess the silver lining for this particular situation is that since I will be without a car until probably the middle of next week I will be forced to ride my bike to work again, a practice at which I have become slightly remiss. But seriously dude, what are you going to do with used climbing gear?

Congress Just Keeps Wagging the Dog

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, but I must admit that Congress, specifically the House of Representatives shocked me yesterday by passing a bill authorizing the government to sue OPEC over high domestic gasoline prices.

I am definitely not an expert on international law, but I am unaware of any part of US Law to which independent sovereign nations would be beholden. I am pretty convinced that fewer than one in ten of the Congressmen who voted for this bill know either, if any. A classic example of Congress trying to look like it’s getting things accomplished while actually merely posturing for a largely uninformed electorate.

If we actually want to do something to affect domestic gasoline prices we need to increase supply and decrease demand. Obviously over-simplified, but if we can build some new refineries (good luck getting that one past the local government of any site deemed fit for one) and cut down on the amount of gas we actually consume (congestion charges and increased efficiency maybe) we might be able to put a dent in gasoline prices. But until we curb demand and stop choking off our supply suing the countries that sell us oil isn’t going to do a damn thing.

What A Rush

On a more personal note: lead climbing is amazing!  I rock climbed a fair amount in high school and have picked it up again since I moved to Seattle, thanks to my friends Andy and Teresa.  Just about all of my experience is with top rope climbing.  Yesterday I did some real lead climbing for the first time.  It was one of the most intense things I’ve ever done.

For people who don’t know the terminology, top rope is when there is a rope attached to an anchor at the top of the route with one end going to the climbing and the other down to the belayer.  The belayer pulls in the excess rope as the climber ascends, basically ensuring that the climber will not fall very far if he loses his grip on the wall.  In lead climbing there is no rope above the climber.  The climber drags the rope up the wall with her, clipping it to anchors in the wall as she ascends.  The biggest differences between the two are that in leading the climber has to take the time to clip to the wall several times during the climb and (more importantly) most of the time the climber is actually above (or at least level with) the highest point of protection.  That translates into much bigger falls if the climber loses it.  It really gets your heart going knowing that if you screw up your next move you aren’t just going to swing off the wall but you’re actually going to fall a significant distance.

Many thanks to Andy for the instruction and opportunity.  It’s a whole new ballgame for me now.

Did You Expect Anything Better?

In November the Democrats took back control of both chambers of Congress for the first time since 1994 because of the general sense in America that things are headed in the wrong direction and the people who represent us in Washington weren’t doing a good job. I agree. The republican controlled Congress had been dragging its feet on immigration reform, healthcare reform, environmental concerns (specifically geared toward climate change), and a host of other issues.

Now Democrats run things on Capitol Hill. Have things changed? Not much. The most prominent piece of legislation to be passed so far is purely symbolic since Bush had guaranteed a veto even before it was passed and the Dems don’t have the votes to override.

And now Democrats are starting to fall victim to the same stuff that got the public so pissed off at the GOP. Harry Reid is under scrutiny because of a potentially improper or illegal land deal. He’s also the major stumbling block to reforming mining law because mining is such a major industry in Nevada. Nancy Pelosi seems almost impotent in trying to push through lobbying reform bill that would be a first step to fixing part of what made the public so disenchanted with Congress in the first place.

NEWS FLASH! Career politicians are going to watch out for their own ass before your ass every day of the week. It doesn’t matter what party they represent. The republicans are now out of the majority in Congress because they weren’t doing their jobs. But anyone who voted for a democrat and actually thought things were going to change was sorely mistaken.

Wind vs. Nuclear: Not Even The Same Ballpark

Here is interesting essay and rebuttal exchange discussing the pros and cons of nuclear energy as a way of combatting climate change as an alternate source of energy going forward in the 21st century. While the debate itself is interesting, I found the discussion of wind energy as an alternative to nuclear to be worthy of greater attention (this discussion is found almost entirely in the “con” essay).

Currently nuclear power accounts for roughly twenty percent of the electricity generated in the United States. Wind power accounts for less than one percent of US electricity. The con essay suggests that wind power is already comparable to natural gas and new nuclear power plants in term of cost: between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt hour. The essay also mentions but then conveniently forgets that that is the cost of production at “favorable sites”, neglecting to provide even a hint of definition or idea of how many unexploited “favorable sites” remain. The essay then goes on to suggest that with very little change in the existing electricity grid wind power could produce 15-20 percent of the nations electricity. To suggest that an already heavily subsidized energy source could easily go from producing less than 1% of our need to producing almost one fifth of the nations power with only “the proper priorities on upgrading the transmission and distribution infrastructure and changing regulations” seems overly optimistic.

One reason that I cannot see wind energy producing even close to 20% of our electricity is the simple fact that the wind does not blow all the time even at “favorable sites”. Imagine having one fifth of our electrical generation capacity dependent on the weather. The authors suggest storage mechanisms as a remedy, such as “new energy storage facilities” or pumped hydro-power resevoirs (these are shot down quite well in the rebuttal at the end). Nuclear energy is clean, efficient, and reliable. For that reason alone wind power will not be a suitable alternative, barring a series of major techonological innovations in electrical transmission and storage. If we are going to solve the problems of growing demand for power with clean solutions we need ideas that don’t involve covering North Dakota with windmills.

Ethanol: Long Term Benefits for Short-Term Headaches

Legislation is making its way through Congress concerning “green”energy sources, specifically wind and solar for electricity and ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. Included in this bill are targets for reducing gasoline consumption within the United States. The first target is to cut gasoline consumption by 20% within the next 10 years. Ignoring the fact that Congress has a habit of setting benchmarks with little to no basis in fact or possibility and revising them later, this is significant. First, laudably, Congress is finally getting off its ass and trying to do something about burning fossil fuels in the long term. Second, and mostly ignored by the majority of people, are the short term affects that these goals will have on the current market for transportation fuel, specifically gasoline.

Anyone who has been to a gas station recently has noticed a huge increase in the price of gasoline. In the two and a half months I have lived in Seattle gas prices have jumped nearly 75 cents per gallon. Simply put, this is because at previous prices companies could not produce as much gasoline as people wanted to buy. As anyone who has taken even two weeks of an economics course knows, when demand exceeds supply prices rise. The United States simply does not have the capacity, specifically refining capacity, to produce enough gasoline to meet demand at low prices. So prices rise and eventually enough people cut down on gasoline consumption so that the quanitity demand equals quanitity supplied (see Chapters 1 and 2 of any economics textbook). The simplest way to bring gas prices back down would be to increase the amount of gasoline produced. Much easier said than done.

To say that builidng a refinery in this country during the last 25 years has been a major headache would be a massive understatement. Besides environmental regulations there is also the problem of the “not in my backyard” mentality: residents never want a refinery built in their neighborhood. Now a new addition to the list: goverment mandated reduction of gasoline consumption, which hurts the potential future cash flows from the refinery. Reducing gasoline consumption and substituting cleaner burning fuels are worthwhile goals to be sure, but while we are promoting these thing for the long term we are removing incentives for oil companies to increase the supply of gasoline in the short term as well as the long. We want cleaner fuels but we have to put up with the headache of high gas prices for a while if we want to get there.

Just a side note: I wanted to include a rather enlightened and appropriate quote I found today on someone else’s blog:

“If you have voted for, or even applauded, conservation efforts that block or resist drilling in Alaska, if you don’t want refineries on your skyline, then you don’t deserve to complain about gasoline or other energy prices. If you plan to take a vacation anywhere this summer that requires driving or flying, if you’re even driving to the lake or the park for the day, you’re adding to the seasonal price swing. Your choices and your priorities are your own, and I’m not criticizing them. But you cannot claim the moral high ground and then complain about the cost.”

The Law is The Law…Enforce It or Change It

There was another round of rallys and protests yesterday centered around (illegal) immigrants rights and the recent raids around the country rounding up illegal immigrants from job sites and deporting them. I’m not one of those people who is saying we should close the border and keep America for Americans, but this is absurd. We have immigration laws in this country. While I don’t agree with every facet of the law it is still THE LAW. It is the job of the INS to enforce those laws and one way to enforce the law is to capture and punish those who break it.

One story from the AP outlined clashes between police and protesters in Los Angeles (another mess in itself), but buried toward the end of the story a line struck me about a mother pushing a stroller with a sign: “Bush, Think of the Moms. Stop the raids.” There are two assumptions in this that strike me as rather, well, wrong. The first is that Bush is responsible for the raids. The fact is that as the highest executive of the United States government he is responsible, albeit quite indirectly. The second and more important assumption is that we should make exceptions in enforcing the law for people who have families. Since any person born within the United States is automatically a citizen we have a problem. Sometimes when the INS deports an illegal immigrant that immigrant has children who are legal citizens and therefore have the right to remain in this country. Everyone knows this. The unfortunate part is that these children are left in the lurch when their parents get shipped out.

Do I feel sorry for these children? Of course I do. Do I think George Bush or the INS is the one to blame? Definitely not. The blame should truly lie with the parents. The reason the INS deports illegal immigrants is because they are breaking the law, period. The idea that we should not enforce the law because doing so will affect the children is ridiculous. Do we let those guilty of grand theft auto or securities fraud off the hook becuase they have kids? Of course not. So why should we do it with people breaking immigration laws? A person has to accept the consequences of his actions. If he is an illegal immigrant and fathers children within the USA then he has to accept the fact that one day he may be arrested and deported. That is a choice he made and now he has to live with the consequences.

Now I don’t agree with current immigration laws. I think they are outdated, ineffective, and in direct conflict the the demand for labor in this country, both skilled and unskilled. I believe Congress is hideously derelict in their duty to reform the immigration laws in this country. However, until those in Washington get off their asses and actually get something done the laws on the books are still the laws and they need to be enforced. The law is the law. If you don’t like it, change it or get it changed. But you can’t simply ignore it.