Earlier this week, AP wrote a column on the implications of BP's Deepwater Horizon spill on the chances for climate change legislation for Mass High Tech.
Here's the text (without hyperlinks):
DEEPWATER HORIZON: COMPLICATING NEW ENGLAND'S CHANCES FOR A CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
Even as this column is being written, BP’s Deepwater Horizon continues to spill oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Over the past week, estimates of the rate of spillage have increased by more than ten-fold, to close to 70,000 barrels a day.
In the month since the blowout event took place, if the revised estimates are accurate, more oil has leaked than in the previous largest accident: the infamous Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska.
One might think that the BP spill, which has highlighted the risks and external costs imposed by hydro-carbons, would inspire America to revisit its national energy policy. And to be fair, Congress has been wrestling with climate change since at least as early as 1997 with Kyoto. The current proposal is the “Waxman-Markey bill” – climate-change legislation that has already been passed by the House – and now is being considered by the Senate, under legislation written by U.S. Sen. John Kerry.
The “Markey” in Waxman-Markey refers to U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, also of Massachusetts, whose Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming wrote a significant portion of the bill. Last week, members of the Progressive Business Leaders Network (PBLN) had the opportunity to visit at length with Markey during the group’s annual conference in Washington last week. (Held in the sparkling new Capitol Visitor’s Center, the conference brought more than 75 New England business leaders together with Members of Congress, congressional staff and Obama Administration officials for a full day of policy and politics.)
Back to the BP spill: With the economic and ecological future of the Gulf of Mexico in jeopardy, why wouldn’t the accident help gather political momentum on behalf of a climate change bill that seeks – in part – to reduce the nation’s reliance on oil? After all, the hydrocarbon-based economy is a classic “externality” problem: because the costs of petroleum cannot be accurately measured (or priced), oil appears to be inexpensive vis-à-vis other forms of energy. Further, existing oil reserves are being depleted, which forces exploration out further offshore, with the risks that are now clear.
The key to understanding this fragile deal is in President Obama’s announcement in March that he was “open” to expanded East Coast offshore drilling. The statement surprised many and was met with resistance from some in the environmental coalition. Yet in retrospect, it seems clear that the president’s endorsement of expanded drilling was intended to give political cover to pick up votes in favor of the climate change bill. Politics does make strange bedfellows, and perhaps none more so than a nice, blue-state congressman like Ed Markey getting himself mixed up with the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd. But as Markey himself remarked, the BP spill has stiffened environmental resistance to offshore drilling, even as the politics of climate change seems to require some short-term expansion of the activity.
Markey, who (not co-incidentally) wrote or co-authored three separate pieces of legislation in the 1990s that de-regulated cable and reformed the wireless spectrum, sees energy as a much bigger opportunity than tech was 15 years ago. “The energy sector is four times bigger than tech,” he told the PBLN audience. And the region is poised to receive a disproportionate share of clean-energy grants; Markey stated that in the 2009 Stimulus, 20 percent of all NIH grants were awarded to New England institutions. Like the teaching hospitals that attract health grants, the region has inherent advantages: “the very factors that drive energy costs higher in New England makes the return on energy investments here much better.” Citing examples like A123 and EnerNOC, Markey highlighted local energy innovation: “That’s who we are in New England.”
Markey remains optimistic – perhaps unrealistically so, as he admitted to the PBLN group – despite the difficulties in getting the requisite votes in the Senate. But he is coldly realistic about the challenges that the U.S. faces in migrating to a clean-energy economy.
He closed his presentation with the story of a recent visit to southern China, where he passed a factory where dozens of brand-new wind-turbine blades lay stacked under tarps, pointed in Markey’s words “like daggers aimed at America. I was reminded of Adlai Stevenson’s presentation to the UN in 1962 where he showed the world the photographic proof of Soviet missiles pointed at the U.S. China is ruthlessly targeting the U.S. clean energy field.”
China has identified clean energy as a future growth sector; in wind turbines, for instance, China has jumped from negligible production a decade ago to three of the world’s top 10 manufacturers, and China is now the world’s largest wind market. For energy-consuming New England, properly pricing hydrocarbon energy is both in the region’s and in the U.S. national interest. It would be more than ironic if the BP spill meant the delay in development of a clean-tech industry for a world that is more precarious – and energy-hungry – than ever.
Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts
Friday, May 21, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Book Ends
The national championship won by Duke on Monday had a feel of wistfulness. Once upon a time, Duke was the up-and-coming college basketball program, looking to break through with its first national title. The break-through happened in 1991, when Duke upended a powerful UNLV team in the semis, and beat traditional power Kansas in the Finals.
This time it was a young Butler team that came out of nowhere to reach Monday night's game. In just seven years Bulldog coach Brad Stevens went from representing Eli Lilly to trading (coaching) punches with a Hall-of-Famer.
But in the end, Coach K won his (and the school's) fourth title, although the current Blue Devils -- with no clear-cut NBA prospects -- are a far cry from the first national title team, which featured three NBA first-round draft choices (Bobby Hurley (#7 overall); Christian Laettner (#3); and Grant Hill (also #3 overall.))
In another way, Monday's game harkened back to that 1991-1992 team. After winning in 1991, the Blue Devils returned all the key pieces, and seemed poised to advance to a third consecutive Final Four. But in the regional final, Duke played Kentucky in what many consider the finest college basketball game ever.
The overtime game ended with a baseball pass from Grant Hill to Christian Laettner, and Laettner's turn-around jumper from 15 feet. By double-teaming Laettner, rather than putting a man on the ball, Kentucky coach Rick Pitino became a cautionary tale for coaches: don't leave the in-bounds passer un-bothered.
Almost twenty years later, Coach K almost became his own cautionary tale. By having center Brian Zoubek intentionally miss the second foul shot with a two-point lead with 3.6 seconds remaining, Coach K risked the unthinkable: Butler's Gordon Hayward would have won the title if his half-court heave had been a quarter-of-an-inch lower on the backboard.
This morning, Coach K went on the radio and defended his decision, saying that Duke's foul situation meant that overtime was "not an alternative."
Apparently Duke's Lance Thomas and Zoubek were much more valuable in Coach K's mind than they appeared on the floor: while they both had 4 fouls, no other Blue Devil had more than 3. Butler, in contrast, had both of its centers with four fouls, with C Matt Howard being hampered by foul trouble all night.
A better test: see how many college coaches instruct their players to miss foul shots intentionally next year.
The guess here: about as many as will allow a passer to be un-guarded.
This time it was a young Butler team that came out of nowhere to reach Monday night's game. In just seven years Bulldog coach Brad Stevens went from representing Eli Lilly to trading (coaching) punches with a Hall-of-Famer.
But in the end, Coach K won his (and the school's) fourth title, although the current Blue Devils -- with no clear-cut NBA prospects -- are a far cry from the first national title team, which featured three NBA first-round draft choices (Bobby Hurley (#7 overall); Christian Laettner (#3); and Grant Hill (also #3 overall.))
In another way, Monday's game harkened back to that 1991-1992 team. After winning in 1991, the Blue Devils returned all the key pieces, and seemed poised to advance to a third consecutive Final Four. But in the regional final, Duke played Kentucky in what many consider the finest college basketball game ever.
The overtime game ended with a baseball pass from Grant Hill to Christian Laettner, and Laettner's turn-around jumper from 15 feet. By double-teaming Laettner, rather than putting a man on the ball, Kentucky coach Rick Pitino became a cautionary tale for coaches: don't leave the in-bounds passer un-bothered.
Almost twenty years later, Coach K almost became his own cautionary tale. By having center Brian Zoubek intentionally miss the second foul shot with a two-point lead with 3.6 seconds remaining, Coach K risked the unthinkable: Butler's Gordon Hayward would have won the title if his half-court heave had been a quarter-of-an-inch lower on the backboard.
This morning, Coach K went on the radio and defended his decision, saying that Duke's foul situation meant that overtime was "not an alternative."
Apparently Duke's Lance Thomas and Zoubek were much more valuable in Coach K's mind than they appeared on the floor: while they both had 4 fouls, no other Blue Devil had more than 3. Butler, in contrast, had both of its centers with four fouls, with C Matt Howard being hampered by foul trouble all night.
A better test: see how many college coaches instruct their players to miss foul shots intentionally next year.
The guess here: about as many as will allow a passer to be un-guarded.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
More Thoughts on Olympic Hockey
Although AP is not a "hockey guy", there are a few more loose-ends going into the medal round of the Olympics:
1. The loss to the US likely brings to an end the international career of Martin Brodeur. Earlier this year, the 38-year-old passed Patrick Roy as the all-time leader in both games played and wins-by-a-goalie. But his shaky work in goal on Sunday meant that Team Canada Coach Mike Babcock has "gone in a different direction" and tapped 31-year-old Roberto Luongo (who backed up Brodeur four years ago in Torino), as well as juggling his lines.
2. Thanks to its loss on Sunday, Team Canada slipped to the #6-seed in the medal round. Assuming they get by Germany, that means a match-up with Russia looming. All year, the NHL has tried to hype Crosby-vs.-Ovechkin. Later this week, we'll all get to see it.
3. But we won't (most likely) get to see it in HD. High-def has helped all televised sports, but none more than hockey. But the Canada/US game was relegated to MSNBC, and this week it seems clear that Women's Figure Skating will be the highlighted prime time event on NBC.
4. Also, filed under "That's Incredible": the games are being played at a venue called "Canada Hockey Place," which is also where the NHL's Vancouver Canucks play their regular season games (then it's known as GM Place.)
The Olympics ice surface is 200 x 100. (You can get a sense of it when watching clips from the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" game.)
The NHL ice surface is 200 x 85 feet. The GM Place ice remains at that size for the Olympics.
So the Olympic hockey competition will be held on a non-Olympic sized rink.
And a separate Olympic-sized rink (Trout Lake) will be used for figure skating.
Go figure.
1. The loss to the US likely brings to an end the international career of Martin Brodeur. Earlier this year, the 38-year-old passed Patrick Roy as the all-time leader in both games played and wins-by-a-goalie. But his shaky work in goal on Sunday meant that Team Canada Coach Mike Babcock has "gone in a different direction" and tapped 31-year-old Roberto Luongo (who backed up Brodeur four years ago in Torino), as well as juggling his lines.
2. Thanks to its loss on Sunday, Team Canada slipped to the #6-seed in the medal round. Assuming they get by Germany, that means a match-up with Russia looming. All year, the NHL has tried to hype Crosby-vs.-Ovechkin. Later this week, we'll all get to see it.
3. But we won't (most likely) get to see it in HD. High-def has helped all televised sports, but none more than hockey. But the Canada/US game was relegated to MSNBC, and this week it seems clear that Women's Figure Skating will be the highlighted prime time event on NBC.
4. Also, filed under "That's Incredible": the games are being played at a venue called "Canada Hockey Place," which is also where the NHL's Vancouver Canucks play their regular season games (then it's known as GM Place.)
The Olympics ice surface is 200 x 100. (You can get a sense of it when watching clips from the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" game.)
The NHL ice surface is 200 x 85 feet. The GM Place ice remains at that size for the Olympics.
So the Olympic hockey competition will be held on a non-Olympic sized rink.
And a separate Olympic-sized rink (Trout Lake) will be used for figure skating.
Go figure.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Dog that Didn't Bark, and other SOTU Thoughts
President Obama's first State of the Union (SOTU) was delivered last night. A few loose ends and random thoughts:
* A Return to Clinton-ism. Bill Clinton was famous for revising the text of his speeches at the last minute, even on the ride over from the White House to the Capitol. This President, who seemingly won't say "Thank You" without a teleprompter, has (heretofore) been more punctual.
But the embargoed text was not delivered to the cable networks 30 minutes before his speech (as promised, according to CNN's Wolf Blitzer.) And unlike previous years, where Members of Congress followed the speech in booklet form, no one was reading; instead they were listening -- with varying degrees of intensity.
And the length of the speech itself -- close to 75 minutes -- indicates that re-drafting was going on to the the last minute. (As Blaise Pascal once remarked, "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.)
The lack of a prepared text (for Members, not the POTUS, obviously) meant that the Members were not 'prepared' for when the TV cameras would be focusing on them. Nor the Republicans, in particular, seem to know how or when to react to the various portions of the speech. (For example, the GOP side of the chamber, after the initial ovations during the introductions, seemingly did not stand and cheer for a single proposal or statement by the President until he called for "safe, clean nuclear power plants", which occurred almost half-way through the speech.)
* Joe Wilson II. The South Carolina Congressman who heckled the President during September's health care speech was nowhere to be seen. But stepping into the role, or perhaps auditioning for a larger role later, was Supreme Sam Alito, who responded to Obama's criticism of a recent Court decision but mouthing "That's Not True".
BTW, Obama vs. Alito debating the merits of Citizens United would be "Must See TV."
* The Dog that Didn't Bark. Since at least the Reagan era, it has been a tradition to recognize various Americans (and on occasion foreign dignitaries) in the First Lady's box overlooking the House chamber.) In 2002, newly-installed Afghan leader Hamid Karzai appeared. In 2004, Michigan grad Tom Brady served as a "visual prop" for President Bush's call to outlaw steroids.
Last night, President Obama recognized no one except for the First Lady and Jill Biden. (The cameras did focus on the Ambassador from Haiti when POTUS was discussing the earthquake.)
Although there appeared to be a number of "special guests" in the audience -- including at least according to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, members of the response team from the Fort Hood shooting -- this SOTU was not focused on personal symbolism.
* The (Almost) Missing Bark. At the end of the preoration, it is customary to report that "The state of the Union is strong..." or similar words
(A few randomly-selected examples: Bush 43 (2008) ("The state of our union will remain strong"); (2002) ("Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger"); Clinton (2000) ("The state of our Union is the strongest it has ever been"). Interestingly, the only non-use of the "union is strong" formulation that AP could find was in Bush 41's 1992 address, at the start of his failed re-election year.)
Obama incorporated the word "Union" issue three different times in his SOTU opening (including once in a bit of wordplay: "when the Union was turned back at Bull Run"), before concluding: "I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong."
* Enough with Virginia Governors. Virginia sits just south of the Washington, the locale of 90% of the nation's political reporters. Virginia's electorate, with its combination of rural conservatives in the south and west, and yuppie urbanites in the north, supposedly mimics the country's as a whole. And perhaps most important, Virginia's Constitution forbids its Governors from standing for immediate re-election.
So, every four years, when a new Governor is elected in the Old Dominion State, the pundit class declares him (or her, presumably) a "new rising star" and revs up the "could-this-Governor-be-the-next-President" bandwagon.
(Since 1982, here is the list of Virginia Governors: Chuck Robb, Gerald Baliles, Douglas Wilder, George Allen, Jim Gilmore, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine. Of these, only Baliles (and Kaine, who left office after Obama's election) refrained from either explicitly running, or attempting to run, for President. All six ended, um, poorly.)
Here's another theory: since the VA Governor's seat is always an 'open' one (i.e., no incumbent to defeat), that means that running a successful gubernatorial campaign in VA is actually a very poor predictor of how political talent will fare in a more traditional setting: with incumbents and re-election campaigns.
Anyways, the latest "new rising star" Bob McDonnell was given the opportunity to respond to the SOTU last night. Although he bested last year's speaker, LA Governor Bobby Jindal, that was not a high bar: Jindal's performance was compared (unfavorably) to that of Kenneth the Page on 30 Rock.
But when even FNC's Charles Krauthammer described your oratorical performance as "workman-like", that may be a sign that your star is rising a bit slower than you might like.
* A Return to Clinton-ism. Bill Clinton was famous for revising the text of his speeches at the last minute, even on the ride over from the White House to the Capitol. This President, who seemingly won't say "Thank You" without a teleprompter, has (heretofore) been more punctual.
But the embargoed text was not delivered to the cable networks 30 minutes before his speech (as promised, according to CNN's Wolf Blitzer.) And unlike previous years, where Members of Congress followed the speech in booklet form, no one was reading; instead they were listening -- with varying degrees of intensity.
And the length of the speech itself -- close to 75 minutes -- indicates that re-drafting was going on to the the last minute. (As Blaise Pascal once remarked, "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.)
The lack of a prepared text (for Members, not the POTUS, obviously) meant that the Members were not 'prepared' for when the TV cameras would be focusing on them. Nor the Republicans, in particular, seem to know how or when to react to the various portions of the speech. (For example, the GOP side of the chamber, after the initial ovations during the introductions, seemingly did not stand and cheer for a single proposal or statement by the President until he called for "safe, clean nuclear power plants", which occurred almost half-way through the speech.)
* Joe Wilson II. The South Carolina Congressman who heckled the President during September's health care speech was nowhere to be seen. But stepping into the role, or perhaps auditioning for a larger role later, was Supreme Sam Alito, who responded to Obama's criticism of a recent Court decision but mouthing "That's Not True".
BTW, Obama vs. Alito debating the merits of Citizens United would be "Must See TV."
* The Dog that Didn't Bark. Since at least the Reagan era, it has been a tradition to recognize various Americans (and on occasion foreign dignitaries) in the First Lady's box overlooking the House chamber.) In 2002, newly-installed Afghan leader Hamid Karzai appeared. In 2004, Michigan grad Tom Brady served as a "visual prop" for President Bush's call to outlaw steroids.
Last night, President Obama recognized no one except for the First Lady and Jill Biden. (The cameras did focus on the Ambassador from Haiti when POTUS was discussing the earthquake.)
Although there appeared to be a number of "special guests" in the audience -- including at least according to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, members of the response team from the Fort Hood shooting -- this SOTU was not focused on personal symbolism.
* The (Almost) Missing Bark. At the end of the preoration, it is customary to report that "The state of the Union is strong..." or similar words
(A few randomly-selected examples: Bush 43 (2008) ("The state of our union will remain strong"); (2002) ("Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger"); Clinton (2000) ("The state of our Union is the strongest it has ever been"). Interestingly, the only non-use of the "union is strong" formulation that AP could find was in Bush 41's 1992 address, at the start of his failed re-election year.)
Obama incorporated the word "Union" issue three different times in his SOTU opening (including once in a bit of wordplay: "when the Union was turned back at Bull Run"), before concluding: "I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong."
* Enough with Virginia Governors. Virginia sits just south of the Washington, the locale of 90% of the nation's political reporters. Virginia's electorate, with its combination of rural conservatives in the south and west, and yuppie urbanites in the north, supposedly mimics the country's as a whole. And perhaps most important, Virginia's Constitution forbids its Governors from standing for immediate re-election.
So, every four years, when a new Governor is elected in the Old Dominion State, the pundit class declares him (or her, presumably) a "new rising star" and revs up the "could-this-Governor-be-the-next-President" bandwagon.
(Since 1982, here is the list of Virginia Governors: Chuck Robb, Gerald Baliles, Douglas Wilder, George Allen, Jim Gilmore, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine. Of these, only Baliles (and Kaine, who left office after Obama's election) refrained from either explicitly running, or attempting to run, for President. All six ended, um, poorly.)
Here's another theory: since the VA Governor's seat is always an 'open' one (i.e., no incumbent to defeat), that means that running a successful gubernatorial campaign in VA is actually a very poor predictor of how political talent will fare in a more traditional setting: with incumbents and re-election campaigns.
Anyways, the latest "new rising star" Bob McDonnell was given the opportunity to respond to the SOTU last night. Although he bested last year's speaker, LA Governor Bobby Jindal, that was not a high bar: Jindal's performance was compared (unfavorably) to that of Kenneth the Page on 30 Rock.
But when even FNC's Charles Krauthammer described your oratorical performance as "workman-like", that may be a sign that your star is rising a bit slower than you might like.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Elite Pretenders
For the second night in a row in college basketball, a BCS-conference title contender tried to elevate itself. And for the second night in a row, the established order turned away a challenge.
Last night in upstate New York, Georgetown sprinted to a 14-0 start before letting the Syracuse Orange back into the game -- in a big way -- in being outscored by 31 the rest of the way. The Orange, behind G Andy Rautins and F Wesley Johnson, showed that they are well-deserving of their current Top-5 ranking.
A year after the Big East dreamed of sending four teams to the Final Four, it was supposed to be a down year; instead, the conference has six teams in the current AP Top-25 (five in the current KenPom Top-25, but eight (half the league) in the Top-40). The Beast is back.
And Feb. 27th -- Villanova (18-1, 7-0) at Syracuse (20-1, 7-1) -- looms large.
In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan hoped to start on the road back to national prominence when it hosted #5 Michigan State. Armed with a student body seemingly hopped up on Beilein-ball, the Wolverines appeared came back in the second half to take the lead with less than a minute to go.
With 38 seconds remaining, Michigan's DeShawn Sims missed a corner jumper badly. The Spartans' Kalin Lucas drained a 15-foot jumper to take a one-point lead. Sims had a chance to redeem himself with 1.5 left, but a tough layup slipped off the front rim.
And Maize-and-Blue fans wonder if raiding Morgantown was worth it.
Last night in upstate New York, Georgetown sprinted to a 14-0 start before letting the Syracuse Orange back into the game -- in a big way -- in being outscored by 31 the rest of the way. The Orange, behind G Andy Rautins and F Wesley Johnson, showed that they are well-deserving of their current Top-5 ranking.
A year after the Big East dreamed of sending four teams to the Final Four, it was supposed to be a down year; instead, the conference has six teams in the current AP Top-25 (five in the current KenPom Top-25, but eight (half the league) in the Top-40). The Beast is back.
And Feb. 27th -- Villanova (18-1, 7-0) at Syracuse (20-1, 7-1) -- looms large.
In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan hoped to start on the road back to national prominence when it hosted #5 Michigan State. Armed with a student body seemingly hopped up on Beilein-ball, the Wolverines appeared came back in the second half to take the lead with less than a minute to go.
With 38 seconds remaining, Michigan's DeShawn Sims missed a corner jumper badly. The Spartans' Kalin Lucas drained a 15-foot jumper to take a one-point lead. Sims had a chance to redeem himself with 1.5 left, but a tough layup slipped off the front rim.
And Maize-and-Blue fans wonder if raiding Morgantown was worth it.
It was the Best of Times...
Democrats (and the chattering class) have been, to quote the President, in a "tizzy" since last Tuesday, when Martha Coakley's faltering campaign was put out of its misery by Scott Brown. But while the White House re-calibrates in advance of tomorrow's State of the Union, it is not clear that the Scott Brown victory is uniformly good news for the GOP.
According to a poll conducted shortly after the special election(*), seventy percent of Brown voters were voting "for" Brown, rather than "against" Coakley (25%); in contrast, Coakley's voters were 57% for her/40% against Brown. In the aftermath of the election, Brown voters overwhelmingly (75%) want Brown to get some Republican ideas into Democratic legislation, rather than merely work to stop the Democratic agenda (19%), although when talking about health care reform in particular Brown voters were more willing to have Brown work to 'stop' the Dems (48-50).
(*-There were no exit polls conducted for the Special Election)
Brown famously ran without party identity, and instead linked himself directly to JFK in his first TV ad. Although he campaigned as the "41st vote", he did not have the word "Republican" on his ads (including the JFK ad) or signs. In short, he branded himself as a "Scott Brown Republican," with the implication that he would be independent and moderate.
So Brown's victory should be a road map for other Republicans in this election year?
Well, maybe.
While Brown campaigned (and frankly, legislated) as a moderate, the GOP seems to still be in the throes of a ritual purification: only the most conservative candidates will be acceptable in GOP primaries and caucuses.
To wit:
* Arlen Specter, facing a conservative challenge from Pat Toomey, left the GOP last year to give the Dems their short-lived 60th vote in the Senate.
* In upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District, conservative disaffection with moderate Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, resulted in Scozzafava's withdrawal from the race shortly before the November special election, and a win for Democrat Bill Owens in a seat that had been Republican-controlled for close to a century.
* Finally, in Florida, Governor Charlie Crist's lead in the polls over conservative Marco Rubio has evaporated, with Rubio now up by 3 points.
If the true Scott Brown lesson is for Republicans to move to the center, it's not clear that the national GOP wants to hear it.
According to a poll conducted shortly after the special election(*), seventy percent of Brown voters were voting "for" Brown, rather than "against" Coakley (25%); in contrast, Coakley's voters were 57% for her/40% against Brown. In the aftermath of the election, Brown voters overwhelmingly (75%) want Brown to get some Republican ideas into Democratic legislation, rather than merely work to stop the Democratic agenda (19%), although when talking about health care reform in particular Brown voters were more willing to have Brown work to 'stop' the Dems (48-50).
(*-There were no exit polls conducted for the Special Election)
Brown famously ran without party identity, and instead linked himself directly to JFK in his first TV ad. Although he campaigned as the "41st vote", he did not have the word "Republican" on his ads (including the JFK ad) or signs. In short, he branded himself as a "Scott Brown Republican," with the implication that he would be independent and moderate.
So Brown's victory should be a road map for other Republicans in this election year?
Well, maybe.
While Brown campaigned (and frankly, legislated) as a moderate, the GOP seems to still be in the throes of a ritual purification: only the most conservative candidates will be acceptable in GOP primaries and caucuses.
To wit:
* Arlen Specter, facing a conservative challenge from Pat Toomey, left the GOP last year to give the Dems their short-lived 60th vote in the Senate.
* In upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District, conservative disaffection with moderate Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, resulted in Scozzafava's withdrawal from the race shortly before the November special election, and a win for Democrat Bill Owens in a seat that had been Republican-controlled for close to a century.
* Finally, in Florida, Governor Charlie Crist's lead in the polls over conservative Marco Rubio has evaporated, with Rubio now up by 3 points.
If the true Scott Brown lesson is for Republicans to move to the center, it's not clear that the national GOP wants to hear it.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Head East, Young Man...
With the NBA season approaching the half-way mark, Celtic fans have been squirming as a team that once rashly promised to win 72 games has now been treading water for several weeks (5-8 since Christmas Day, when they stood an impressive 23-5).
This Friday in Atlanta has become a surprising test -- the Celtics need a win to avoid a four-game sweep at the hands of the Hawks. Although the Cs can point to absence of C Kevin Garnett as a big reason why the defense has been shaky recently, in reality, the Celts' swoon started even before Garnett went down.
Another team that has been slumping lately has been the Lakers. The defending champs looked great early, reaching a high-water record of 28-6 before slipping and losing 5 of their last 10.
But while the Celtics can point to Garnett's legs, the Lakers have a more troubling problem: going on the road. (In fairness, Ron Artest and Andrew Bynum are both "day-to-day". But then again, aren't we all, Mr. Costello?)
The Lakers have played the fewest road games in the NBA, save only the SA Spurs. (Actually, both the Spurs and Lakers have played 17 'true' road games, as the Lakers played the Clippers (as a visitor) once this season so far.) And in addition to playing few road games, the LAL have won very few as well -- just 10-8 so far.
The Lakers are at the White House this afternoon, being feted by POTUS for their championship last spring. But with five more road games on their current East Coast trip -- and coming off a statement loss in Cleveland on Thursday night, Sunday's game in the new Boston Garden will take on significance for both teams: the Lakers to prove that they can beat elite teams on the road.
The Celtics just have to show that they are still worthy -- or healthy enough -- for the 'elite' label.
This Friday in Atlanta has become a surprising test -- the Celtics need a win to avoid a four-game sweep at the hands of the Hawks. Although the Cs can point to absence of C Kevin Garnett as a big reason why the defense has been shaky recently, in reality, the Celts' swoon started even before Garnett went down.
Another team that has been slumping lately has been the Lakers. The defending champs looked great early, reaching a high-water record of 28-6 before slipping and losing 5 of their last 10.
But while the Celtics can point to Garnett's legs, the Lakers have a more troubling problem: going on the road. (In fairness, Ron Artest and Andrew Bynum are both "day-to-day". But then again, aren't we all, Mr. Costello?)
The Lakers have played the fewest road games in the NBA, save only the SA Spurs. (Actually, both the Spurs and Lakers have played 17 'true' road games, as the Lakers played the Clippers (as a visitor) once this season so far.) And in addition to playing few road games, the LAL have won very few as well -- just 10-8 so far.
The Lakers are at the White House this afternoon, being feted by POTUS for their championship last spring. But with five more road games on their current East Coast trip -- and coming off a statement loss in Cleveland on Thursday night, Sunday's game in the new Boston Garden will take on significance for both teams: the Lakers to prove that they can beat elite teams on the road.
The Celtics just have to show that they are still worthy -- or healthy enough -- for the 'elite' label.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Stealing Third
In (what proved to be) pivotal Game Four of the 2009 World Series, Johnny Damon pulled the rare feat of stealing two bases on a single play. In the top of the ninth with the score tied and two out, Damon fell behind 1-2, before working Brad Lidge for six more pitches and singling to left field.
Running on the first pitch to Mark Teixeira, Damon stole second, and barely pausing proceeded to take third as with the Phillies' shift, the bag was uncovered. Several Phils could have covered the bag, and Damon probably wouldn't have gone unless he was absolutely certain he could make it. Lidge proceeded to meltdown (hitting Teixeira with a pitch, and giving up an RBI double to A-Rod), and the Series was gone.
The mistake was actually made by Lidge, as it was the pitcher's responsibility to cover third with the shift on. But Phillies SS Jimmy Rollins said:
Why focus on a play that happened four months ago? The same sort of mental mistake just occurred in Massachusetts. As the NYT reported today, as of December 16th, Martha Coakley was leading Scott Brown by 13 percentage points(*); but inside the numbers (or "cross-tabs"), when the respondents were limited to just those "likely" to vote, Coakley's lead shrunk to just 3 points. Scary numbers for Dems, and encouraging ones for the GOP.
(*)-The Times cites a GOP poll, but presumably other public polls (and Dem polls) would have -- or should have -- shown the same results.
As the Times shows, the GOP and Tea Partiers, used the holiday season -- when Coakley went off the trail for at least six days -- to build up momentum quietly behind Brown. By the time the public at large -- and the media -- caught up to the campaign, the "Brown-out" had broken out. Momentum and likeability -- combined with a public race that really lasted just two weeks (shortly after New Years through last Tuesday) -- spelled doom for Coakley.
No one has played the role of J-Roll in the Democratic party. Instead, we saw the incredible scene of dueling quotes on Tuesday -- before the voting booths had even closed.
Running on the first pitch to Mark Teixeira, Damon stole second, and barely pausing proceeded to take third as with the Phillies' shift, the bag was uncovered. Several Phils could have covered the bag, and Damon probably wouldn't have gone unless he was absolutely certain he could make it. Lidge proceeded to meltdown (hitting Teixeira with a pitch, and giving up an RBI double to A-Rod), and the Series was gone.
The mistake was actually made by Lidge, as it was the pitcher's responsibility to cover third with the shift on. But Phillies SS Jimmy Rollins said:
"I'm the captain of the infield," Rollins said. "It's my job. … I didn't signal to Brad to make sure he gets to third on a throw. All you've got to do is take two steps in that direction and you stop it right there. But I didn't do my part in making sure he knew the defense we were in."
Why focus on a play that happened four months ago? The same sort of mental mistake just occurred in Massachusetts. As the NYT reported today, as of December 16th, Martha Coakley was leading Scott Brown by 13 percentage points(*); but inside the numbers (or "cross-tabs"), when the respondents were limited to just those "likely" to vote, Coakley's lead shrunk to just 3 points. Scary numbers for Dems, and encouraging ones for the GOP.
(*)-The Times cites a GOP poll, but presumably other public polls (and Dem polls) would have -- or should have -- shown the same results.
As the Times shows, the GOP and Tea Partiers, used the holiday season -- when Coakley went off the trail for at least six days -- to build up momentum quietly behind Brown. By the time the public at large -- and the media -- caught up to the campaign, the "Brown-out" had broken out. Momentum and likeability -- combined with a public race that really lasted just two weeks (shortly after New Years through last Tuesday) -- spelled doom for Coakley.
No one has played the role of J-Roll in the Democratic party. Instead, we saw the incredible scene of dueling quotes on Tuesday -- before the voting booths had even closed.
Friday, February 20, 2009
'Terminator'-style Military Robots?
Attention given to military robots by the mainstream press attention has increased recently. Drones such as the Predator, a robotic drone (actually semi-autonomous, as it is actually tele-operated) have become an increasing part of the "G**T"(*)
Then just last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee disclosed that Predators have been operating out of a base located on Pakistani soil, causing a diplomatic row last week. And shortly after that disclosure, a drone attack killed 30 people in Pakistan, although the intended target (a Taliban leader) was apparently not killed.
On the heels of all of that comes a new report issued by the Office of Naval Research (part of the US Navy) and by three scientists at Cal Poly (Patrick Lin, PhD., George Bekey, PhD., and Keith Abney, M.A.) The study, entitled “Autonomous Military Robots: Risk, Ethics, And Design” appears to be the first of its kind produced by the military on the ethics of military robots, and covers a wide range of topics.
The mainstream press has picked up on the potential for a robot turning (or being turned) against its makers. The Times of London quotes one of the report’s authors, Patrick Lin, as saying “There is a common misconception that robots will do only what we have programmed them to do.”
FoxNews is running (as of this writing) a similar story on the report, entitled "Experts Warn of 'Terminator'-Style Military-Robot Rebellion."
The onus for the ONR Report may be the increasing use of robots by the military, a trend that will only increase in coming years. According to the ONR report, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 requires that by “2010, one-third of all operational deep-strike aircraft must be unmanned, and by 2015, one-third of all ground combat vehicles must be unmanned.”
The Report also explores the role that the Laws of War (LOW) (generally) and Rules of Engagement (ROE) (specific with respect to a mission or engagement) may play with an autonomous robot. While certain of the LOW/ROE may be challenged by autonomous robots (for example, who bears responsibility for a battlefield decision by a robot), the authors also indicate that unemotional robots may be less likely to commit atrocities.
The entire report is available here.
(*)- The struggle against terrorism that may become 'formerly known as' the "Global War on Terror"
Then just last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee disclosed that Predators have been operating out of a base located on Pakistani soil, causing a diplomatic row last week. And shortly after that disclosure, a drone attack killed 30 people in Pakistan, although the intended target (a Taliban leader) was apparently not killed.
On the heels of all of that comes a new report issued by the Office of Naval Research (part of the US Navy) and by three scientists at Cal Poly (Patrick Lin, PhD., George Bekey, PhD., and Keith Abney, M.A.) The study, entitled “Autonomous Military Robots: Risk, Ethics, And Design” appears to be the first of its kind produced by the military on the ethics of military robots, and covers a wide range of topics.
The mainstream press has picked up on the potential for a robot turning (or being turned) against its makers. The Times of London quotes one of the report’s authors, Patrick Lin, as saying “There is a common misconception that robots will do only what we have programmed them to do.”
FoxNews is running (as of this writing) a similar story on the report, entitled "Experts Warn of 'Terminator'-Style Military-Robot Rebellion."
The onus for the ONR Report may be the increasing use of robots by the military, a trend that will only increase in coming years. According to the ONR report, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 requires that by “2010, one-third of all operational deep-strike aircraft must be unmanned, and by 2015, one-third of all ground combat vehicles must be unmanned.”
The Report also explores the role that the Laws of War (LOW) (generally) and Rules of Engagement (ROE) (specific with respect to a mission or engagement) may play with an autonomous robot. While certain of the LOW/ROE may be challenged by autonomous robots (for example, who bears responsibility for a battlefield decision by a robot), the authors also indicate that unemotional robots may be less likely to commit atrocities.
The entire report is available here.
(*)- The struggle against terrorism that may become 'formerly known as' the "Global War on Terror"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)