Dear Senator Flake,
I am grateful you used your leverage to get some sort of FBI inquiry into the allegations made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but I’m wondering what follow-up you have in mind.
You’ve said that if the FBI finds that Judge Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, his nomination is over. But you didn’t need the FBI to know that he was lying. Not necessarily about what did or didn’t happen in 1983, but numerous statements the judge made in his September 27th testimony are documentably false, down to whether he watched Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony (a Republican aide says he did watch it; Judge Kavanaugh stated in the hearing that he did not).
The FBI investigation itself indirectly raises other questions. Your colleague Sen. Collins said she found the investigation to have been complete, but that’s transparently false. The Bureau didn’t interview the witnesses proposed by Deborah Ramirez. They didn’t interview numerous college classmates of the judge who came forward to offer their eyewitness testimony about his drinking behavior during college (and thus speak to whether he was truthful with the Senate Judiciary Committee).
Most damningly, they interviewed neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh. During the most recent testimony, the judge was not only combative, but notably evasive in responding to questions from Democratic senators. In an FBI inquiry, belligerence and evasion don’t work, and so the failure to interview Judge Kavanaugh looks very much like an intentional measure to avoid making him answer difficult questions.
The background issue here is what purpose you had in mind for an FBI investigation. If you wanted to be able to point and say, “The FBI looked, they didn’t find anything, so my conscience is clear in voting ‘Yes,’” then you got what you wanted, what you needed.
Friday, October 5, 2018
Saturday, August 25, 2018
Welcome to the world of InstaChat
For the second time in about four days, I've been in a stall in a public bathroom when someone else has come in and started narrating their inner world.
Today's running commentary:
"It smells like, Oh my god.
It smells like, a god, who's pissed at the world, because it shits dicks."
I hear a dog barking in the hall outside the the bathroom.
"I know that dog."
A-a-a-and, we're out.
Today's running commentary:
"It smells like, Oh my god.
It smells like, a god, who's pissed at the world, because it shits dicks."
I hear a dog barking in the hall outside the the bathroom.
"I know that dog."
A-a-a-and, we're out.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Day 38: Apparently, dictatorship is fine
My Congressman supports Trump being a dictator.
Well, he hasn’t said that in so many words, but I’ve been asking for a while whether he would vote for impeachment if Trump were to murder someone who was investigating him.
He hasn’t answered.
And when I say “a while,” I mean since June 4th.
That’s seven-and-a-half weeks ago. 52 calendar days. Or Day 38 if we take June 4th as Day 1 and count only work days.
Here’s today’s conversation (earlier ones are linked at the end of the post).
Earlier calls:
Well, he hasn’t said that in so many words, but I’ve been asking for a while whether he would vote for impeachment if Trump were to murder someone who was investigating him.
He hasn’t answered.
And when I say “a while,” I mean since June 4th.
That’s seven-and-a-half weeks ago. 52 calendar days. Or Day 38 if we take June 4th as Day 1 and count only work days.
Here’s today’s conversation (earlier ones are linked at the end of the post).
Last week Mr. Faso issued a statement criticizing the president’s handling of the press conference after the Helsinki summit.
Since then, we’ve heard hints from the Russian side about what was agreed to in the summit itself, and sometimes we get confirmation from the White House, sometimes we get silence.
And the president apparently agreed to some very dangerous things, like ratifying the Russian seizure of Crimea and potentially ratifying the occupation of eastern Ukraine.
In dealing with this, we have no coherent report from the American side, and no coherent response within the U.S. government, because the president ignored everyone’s advice beforehand and went in one-on-one—the only other American in the room was his translator.
This is not mishandling a press conference. This is, at best, massive incompetence in the conduct of foreign policy. But it also looks like subservience to a foreign dictator.
Is Mr. Faso doing anything about this threat to our country?
What you like him to do?
Is he doing anything other than criticizing a press conference?
I want to know, first, what he thinks of the deeper, more serious issues about the summit itself.
And he could perhaps have hearings, ask to talk to the Secretary of State or others involved in foreign policy.[Takes name and contact info, promises to pass along my concerns.]
While I have you, I just need to follow up on another question that I’ve been trying to get an answer on since June 4th. That’s seven-and-a-half weeks ago. If I’ve spoken to you before, you probably know what it is.
The president’s lawyer says he could kill James Comey and it would still be illegal to indict him, because the only remedy for a president is impeachment. So I want to know: If the president were to kill someone who was investigating him, would Representative Faso vote to impeach him?
I have not spoken to the Congressman as to whether he would vote to impeach if the president were to murder someone investigating him.
Well, as I said, I’ve been asking this question for seven-and-a-half weeks, and everyone I’ve spoken to about it has said that they would see that the Congressman got the question, so presumably someone has spoken with him about it, but I guess it wasn’t you.
This is the first I’ve heard of it.
And this is not some bizarre hypothetical. The president’s own lawyer brought it up.
This is an absurdly easy question. If you don’t support impeachment for a president who murders investigators, then you support dictatorship.
It’s beyond pathetic that Mr. Faso can’t answer this question.
The question is basically, Can the president murder his opponents without being impeached? Can the president murder his opponents without being impeached?
Why is that even a question?
You should be able to say, “Of course Mr. Faso doesn’t believe the president should be able to murder his opponents without being impeached.”
But you can’t say that, because Mr. Faso hasn’t seen fit to answer the question.
And that is simply absurd.
I will certainly see that he gets asked this question.
Do you personally interact with the Congressman?
Yes.
Do you think you personally could put this question to him?
Yes, I can do that.
And can you convey to him how absurd it is that he can’t answer it?
Yes, I will do that.
And perhaps at some point in, oh, the next two years, I might get an answer, but by now I fully expect not to get one. Though I will keep asking.
Mm-hm.
What kind of world is this, where a congressman can’t answer this question?
I don’t know.
You have a good day sir.
I would have a better day if my elected representative believed in democracy. You have a good day, too.In case you're in John Faso's district, the number for his D.C. office is (202) 225-5614. He'd love to hear from you!
Earlier calls:
Thursday, July 19, 2018
How to ruin small-talk
Everybody knows that feeling when you walk away from a conversation, then five minutes later think “That’s what I should have said.”
You know that feeling, right?
I still don’t have that feeling.
It’s been half a day, and I’m still at, “What should I have said? Should I have said something?”
I was in the grocery store and I almost collided with another customer. His physical type was one you encounter pretty often here in upstate New York: 60-ish, a rough, full beard, and a weathered face.
Oh, and on his chest, in something like a baby carrier, he was wearing a Chihuahua.
You know that feeling, right?
I still don’t have that feeling.
It’s been half a day, and I’m still at, “What should I have said? Should I have said something?”
I was in the grocery store and I almost collided with another customer. His physical type was one you encounter pretty often here in upstate New York: 60-ish, a rough, full beard, and a weathered face.
Oh, and on his chest, in something like a baby carrier, he was wearing a Chihuahua.
 |
| It was basically this model. Now replace the woman wearing it with a gristled 60-year-old man in a rural New York Price Chopper. Image from https://usak9outfitters.com/STCRPP.htm |
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Day 32: Don't expect action
On Monday I called the office of John Faso (NY-19), expecting that he wouldn’t have yet figured out what to say about Trump’s Surrender Summit in Suomi.
To my surprise, the staffer had a statement there to read to me (which I later learned was also on Faso’s website). I was so surprised, that I said I agreed 100%, but I think it was more that seeing my congressman criticize Trump as much as he did was a bit like seeing a dog talk. On reflection, the dog was only making a little sense. (Still, yay dog for talking at all, right?)
Since my call on Monday, Trump had sort of walked back his dis of U.S. intelligence in favor of Putin’s view of what happened in 2016, but not really, and then had gone ahead and full-on ignored the intelligence community’s assessment of risks for 2018.
So I thought I’d check in with Faso.
To my surprise, the staffer had a statement there to read to me (which I later learned was also on Faso’s website). I was so surprised, that I said I agreed 100%, but I think it was more that seeing my congressman criticize Trump as much as he did was a bit like seeing a dog talk. On reflection, the dog was only making a little sense. (Still, yay dog for talking at all, right?)
Since my call on Monday, Trump had sort of walked back his dis of U.S. intelligence in favor of Putin’s view of what happened in 2016, but not really, and then had gone ahead and full-on ignored the intelligence community’s assessment of risks for 2018.
So I thought I’d check in with Faso.
I’m calling to find out what Congressman Faso is doing to follow up on his statement from Monday regarding the president’s summit with Vladimir Putin.
I haven’t had a chance to speak with him about that. Is there a message you’d like to pass along?
There are two very specific actions that Congressman Faso should take.
First, he should work with his colleagues on closing the loophole in the Defense Authorization Act that allows the president to waive sanctions on the Russian military.
And the second?
He should vote with the rest of the House to release the president’s tax returns. Every other presidential nominee for the last 45 years has released his or her tax returns. Trump said he would do it if he was elected. We’re now 20 months past the election, and we still haven’t seen them.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Taking out the garbage (statistics)
Have you ever encountered a list of claims about how great the economy is doing under Trump, and wondered how much substance there was behind it?
As a public service, here’s a list I encountered this morning, set in the context of data.
Enjoy.
And reuse, link, etc.
“Lowest unemployment rate amongst African Americans and the Spanish community since it's been tracked.”
Those numbers are continuations of trends that were running for the last 5 years of Obama’s presidency.
And the employment-population ratio for both groups is still below what it was in 2007, and far below what it was in 2009.
The situation for Latinos (I assume that’s what you meant by “the Spanish community”) is actually still pretty far below the 2007 level.
“Lowest unemployment rate for woman in 66 years.”
I assume you mean “women,” and not some one individual “woman” who’s got her best numbers in 66 years.
As a public service, here’s a list I encountered this morning, set in the context of data.
Enjoy.
And reuse, link, etc.
“Lowest unemployment rate amongst African Americans and the Spanish community since it's been tracked.”
Those numbers are continuations of trends that were running for the last 5 years of Obama’s presidency.
 |
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=kwnF |
 |
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=kwnO |
And the employment-population ratio for both groups is still below what it was in 2007, and far below what it was in 2009.
 |
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=kwnV |
 |
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=kwod |
“Lowest unemployment rate for woman in 66 years.”
I assume you mean “women,” and not some one individual “woman” who’s got her best numbers in 66 years.
Monday, July 16, 2018
Day 30: The non-answer answer
Back on June 4th I called the office of my congressman, John Faso (NY-19). The thing that got me to pick up the phone was Rudy Giuliani’s statement about the president being above any law except impeachment. I kept calling (see the roster at the bottom of the post), and a couple of other issues crept in.
On July 7th, I finally got a response (see the JPEG at the end of this post). I choose the word advisedly, because I didn’t get an answer.
So I called again.
(Note: The “Day 30” in the title is the count in terms of business days. In calendar time we’re already at Day 48 since my first call on June 4th.)
On July 7th, I finally got a response (see the JPEG at the end of this post). I choose the word advisedly, because I didn’t get an answer.
So I called again.
(Note: The “Day 30” in the title is the count in terms of business days. In calendar time we’re already at Day 48 since my first call on June 4th.)
I’ve been asking questions on three areas:
1. Tariffs
2. Family separations
3. Limits of presidential power
I got a letter dated July 7th that says nothing in particular. The Congressman says that he doesn’t agree with President Trump on everything (though he declines to mention anything specific on which he disagrees), and he says he’s working with the Problem Solvers Caucus to find solutions.
I asked specifically whether there would be legislation to prevent further destructive use of tariffs. The letter says nothing about that.
I asked specifically whether there would be hearings on the family-separation question, and also how the congressman reconciles, on the one hand, his stated opposition to detaining children with, on the other, his vote for a bill that would have authorized the continued detention of children. The letter says nothing about any of that.
When I started these calls back on June 4th, my very first question was, if the president did indeed kill someone investigating him, would Mr. Faso vote to impeach. It’s a very specific question, and a very reasonable one, because the president’s own lawyer said the president is immune from indictment, even if he were to have killed James Comey. That leaves impeachment as the only remedy should the president blatantly break the law, and I want to know if the congressman would use it.
It’s a very specific, relevant question, and I expect a grown man to be able to actually answer it, particularly if he thinks he deserves to represent us in Congress.
Is there a chance I can get answers to those questions?
Absolutely. (Takes name and contact info)
Friday, July 6, 2018
Day 24: No limits!
Early last month, in response to an insane comment by Rudy Giuliani, I started a series of somewhat regular calls to the DC office of my congressman, John Faso (NY-19). I wanted to know whether he believed in limits on presidential power.
I’ve kept it up (see the complete list of calls at the bottom of this post), sometimes asking other issues, such as the trade-war question included here, or the congressman’s response to the government’s kidnapping of children on the southern border.
And at times I’ve left the original presidential-powers question aside, to give the congressman adequate time to come up with an answer.
By today, I thought it was time to come back to my original question.
The short story: Mr. Faso seems unconcerned with any limits on presidential power.
(Note: This is Day 24 going by regular work days starting with June 4th as Day 1—it would have been Day 25, but there was July 4th in there. Going by calendar days, this is Day 33.)
I’ve kept it up (see the complete list of calls at the bottom of this post), sometimes asking other issues, such as the trade-war question included here, or the congressman’s response to the government’s kidnapping of children on the southern border.
And at times I’ve left the original presidential-powers question aside, to give the congressman adequate time to come up with an answer.
By today, I thought it was time to come back to my original question.
The short story: Mr. Faso seems unconcerned with any limits on presidential power.
(Note: This is Day 24 going by regular work days starting with June 4th as Day 1—it would have been Day 25, but there was July 4th in there. Going by calendar days, this is Day 33.)
Good morning, I’m following up on a couple of old questions of mine. Mr. Faso has made statements that he is opposed to the trade war the president has unleashed. I would like to know what action Congressman Faso is taking to actually rein that in.
I don’t specifically handle that, I will be sure to get it to the congressman’s desk. Do you have a specific suggestion?
Yes, he should work with his colleagues in Congress to craft legislation to limit the president’s ability to damage the country through pointless trade wars.
I will be sure to pass that along.
OK, I first asked that question on June 11th, three-and-a-half weeks ago. Everyone in the office there is very polite, and everyone says they’ll get my question to the congressman, but I still haven’t gotten an answer. Meanwhile, the damage is being done now. Events aren’t waiting for the congressman and his colleagues to get their act together.
I’m sorry nobody’s gotten back to you, but I will be sure to get the question to his desk.
I have another question: if the president were to kill someone who was investigating him, would Mr. Faso vote for impeachment?
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
A complicated Fourth
I’m out of the country, so there’s no July 4th Celebration nearby for me to go to. If, like yesterday, the rain forecast keeps getting pushed back later into the day, we’ll go for a bike ride, but there won’t be hotdogs, grilling out, fireworks, parades—none of that.
My Congressman, John Faso (NY-19), presumably will be at a July 4th event—after all, it would be political malpractice for an elected official not to be back in his district showing up at as many places as possible where he can associate himself with people’s nonpartisan love of their country.
But see, about that...
Right now our country is holding something north of 2000 children who have been separated from their parents when the families crossed the border. And as a judge wrote last week, “The unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property.”
That is the context in which detained parents are now being asked to sign a form that gives them two options:
But remember, we aren’t tracking those children as well as we track prisoners’ property, so how can ICE even meet its end of the bargain if the parent says they’ll leave with their children?
Meanwhile, month-old news by now, but the president’s lawyer says the president could murder the people investigating him, and the only remedy would be impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate—a president, in Rudy Giuliani’s view—cannot be indicted.
My Congressman, John Faso (NY-19), presumably will be at a July 4th event—after all, it would be political malpractice for an elected official not to be back in his district showing up at as many places as possible where he can associate himself with people’s nonpartisan love of their country.
But see, about that...
Right now our country is holding something north of 2000 children who have been separated from their parents when the families crossed the border. And as a judge wrote last week, “The unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property.”
That is the context in which detained parents are now being asked to sign a form that gives them two options:
- I willingly leave without my child(ren)
- I willingly leave with my child(ren)
But remember, we aren’t tracking those children as well as we track prisoners’ property, so how can ICE even meet its end of the bargain if the parent says they’ll leave with their children?
Meanwhile, month-old news by now, but the president’s lawyer says the president could murder the people investigating him, and the only remedy would be impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate—a president, in Rudy Giuliani’s view—cannot be indicted.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Day 19: Talk one way, vote another.
This is Part X of a series of calls to the DC office of my Congressional representative, John Faso (NY-19). The nine previous calls (sorry, the IX previous calls) are linked below.
I'm still interested in my long-term questions about doing diddly with regards to tariffs, and whether Faso would vote for impeachment in the case that Trump were to literally murder someone. I last brought those up on June 18, so maybe I'll check in with them again next Monday, which will be two weeks since the last time I asked.
In the meantime, I've turned my attention to the humanitarian disaster Trump created on the southern border.
I'm still interested in my long-term questions about doing diddly with regards to tariffs, and whether Faso would vote for impeachment in the case that Trump were to literally murder someone. I last brought those up on June 18, so maybe I'll check in with them again next Monday, which will be two weeks since the last time I asked.
In the meantime, I've turned my attention to the humanitarian disaster Trump created on the southern border.
Good afternoon. I’m calling in regards to HR 6136, the immigration bill the House voted on yesterday.
Yes.
I see that Congressman Faso voted in favor of the bill.
I haven’t looked that up.
I checked on the website of the House clerk, and he’s in the “Ayes” column.
OK.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Demanding the impossible
Reading up on yesterday’s primary in my home district of NY-19, I was struck by this remark:
Regarding the alternatives, it seems like three or four of the candidates had passionate support from people who consider themselves progressives and have better claim to being “locally sourced” and having political experience. So Mr. Greenfield would presumably have preferred one of them to have come out on top.
But I’m having trouble understanding what Mr. Greenfield thinks the Democratic Party should have done.
Green Party candidate Steve Greenfield also congratulated Delgado, but said, quote, “In all ways, the Delgado victory illustrates the vacating of Democratic Party responsibility for offering experienced, locally sourced, politically progressive candidates to voters in New York's 19th District.”I’ve been out of the country for the year, so I haven’t been following the Democratic primary race all that closely. My main lens on the race was the group “Sustainable Otsego,” and in that circle, Mr. Delgado was ranked at or near the bottom. There are concerns about his support for gas pipelines, and his lack of support for thorough reform in health insurance, such as a single-payer system.
Regarding the alternatives, it seems like three or four of the candidates had passionate support from people who consider themselves progressives and have better claim to being “locally sourced” and having political experience. So Mr. Greenfield would presumably have preferred one of them to have come out on top.
But I’m having trouble understanding what Mr. Greenfield thinks the Democratic Party should have done.
Monday, June 25, 2018
Day 16: Would Faso support a hearing?
It had been a few days since I'd spoken with the polite staff at the office of Congressman John Faso (NY-19), so I thought I'd check in.
I’d like to thank the congressman for voting “No” on the Goodlatte bill that came up in the House.
I’ll pass that along.
I’m also glad the immediate crisis is defused with the executive order from last Wednesday, but that is far from solving the problem. For one thing, there’s the question of what happens when we reach the 20-day deadline imposed by the Flores settlement. Where does the congressman stand on indefinite detention of children?
The congressman opposes separation of families, and detention of children. He is for reunification, and he supports the immigration bill that should be coming up later this week, though they’re not sure when that will be.Here I overlooked an important implication: Trump’s executive order “solves” the problem of family separation by allowing children to stay with their parents—in detention. So if Faso opposes detention of children, it follows that he opposes trumps EO. Typing this up, that jumps off the page at me, but I missed it at the time. Bad lawyer! If you’re interested, feel free to call the office and follow up on this.
Does that bill do anything to address the reunification of children who’ve already been separated?
I’m not sure.
Friday, June 22, 2018
Referenda are tricky
A commenter on Daily Kos suggested that direct democracy (i.e., settling things by referendum) is now technologically easier than it used to be, and it would solve the problem of, “Will the person I vote for actually represent my interests?”
But I don’t think it does that.
The major problem with settling lots of things via direct democracy is that law often has to be nuanced, and referenda aren’t great for that.
For instance, how would health-insurance reform go via referendum?
We could put up a simple question, along the lines of, “Do you support a national, single-payer health-insurance system?” But no matter how simple a system you’re trying to create (and it’s technically possible to create one a lot simpler than Obamacare), there are some unavoidable decisions that are difficult.
But I don’t think it does that.
The major problem with settling lots of things via direct democracy is that law often has to be nuanced, and referenda aren’t great for that.
For instance, how would health-insurance reform go via referendum?
We could put up a simple question, along the lines of, “Do you support a national, single-payer health-insurance system?” But no matter how simple a system you’re trying to create (and it’s technically possible to create one a lot simpler than Obamacare), there are some unavoidable decisions that are difficult.
- What is the list of things that the basic package will cover?
- How much will providers be paid? And on a fee-for-service basis? A per-patient basis? Etc.
- What will the revenue source be? General governmental revenues (the same pot of personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, etc., as most of the budget)? A dedicated payroll tax like Social Security and Medicare?
- A related question: if there’s compulsory buy-in rather than simple provision by government, what is the formula for subsidizing purchase of insurance by lower- and middle-income households?
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Scars of dictatorship: Part II
In the previous part of this post I discussed the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (ÚSTR) and the reason it was created—in short, the history of Nazi occupation and communist rule left a complex moral legacy that needs investigation and thoughtful incorporation into the country’s political discourse and education.
I was prompted to that discussion by an event this past week, involving the institute, one of its historians, and the current prime minister, Andrej Babiš.
Babiš is, to put it mildly, a controversial figure.
I was prompted to that discussion by an event this past week, involving the institute, one of its historians, and the current prime minister, Andrej Babiš.
Babiš is, to put it mildly, a controversial figure.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Thanks, American!
I just read that American Airlines is refusing to transport children whom ICE is moving further away from their parents.
I wrote to thank them.
They don't let you write your message until you choose a subject area from the list that they offer you.
They didn't envision having to field public responses regarding a policy of not participating in child theft. I did the best I could:
I wrote to thank them.
They don't let you write your message until you choose a subject area from the list that they offer you.
They didn't envision having to field public responses regarding a policy of not participating in child theft. I did the best I could:
This isn't really about "Vacations," but you don't have a topic area for "Corporation refusing to participate in humanitarian catastrophe."
I just read that American Airlines is refusing to transport children who have been separated from their families in the ongoing humanitarian disaster at the border.
I applaud you for this decision.
Day 13: Some daylight
Well, that was unexpected.
My preparation for the call was the congressman’s Facebook statement from yesterday afternoon that Adrienne Martini called to my attention:
First, I wondered whether “the compromise bill” referenced in the statement was the bill put together by Paul Ryan that I’d read about.
According to the staffer, there are a number of bills being considered.
OK.
So the next question had to do with “resolving the status of the DACA population.” Without knowing what kind of “resolution” he has in mind, this language isn’t all that helpful.
My preparation for the call was the congressman’s Facebook statement from yesterday afternoon that Adrienne Martini called to my attention:
My latest on children being separated from their parents at the border:
"This is a humanitarian issue, and the policy of separating children from their parents is wrong and needs to be addressed immediately. For too many years and administrations, Washington has failed to address how to secure our borders while also ensuring our immigration policies are humane and address the real challenges our border enforcement officers face every day.
"Congress should address this issue quickly, and the compromise legislation I support will do so. In addition, this legislation improves border security, resolves the status of the DACA population and contains other reforms such as the end of the diversity lottery. This legislation would be the most significant reform to our broken immigration system in many decades, and it represents a good-faith compromise that will forever put an end to this disruptive practice."My take away was that, while I appreciated the congressman’s recognition that this is a “humanitarian situation,” there were some vague points I wanted cleared up.
First, I wondered whether “the compromise bill” referenced in the statement was the bill put together by Paul Ryan that I’d read about.
According to the staffer, there are a number of bills being considered.
OK.
So the next question had to do with “resolving the status of the DACA population.” Without knowing what kind of “resolution” he has in mind, this language isn’t all that helpful.
Monday, June 18, 2018
Day 11: The absurd things staff can't tell you
Yet another installment in my quest to find out if my congressman (Faso, NY-19) has any thoughts on the world happening around him. (The full list of earlier efforts is linked at the end.)
I have a couple of questions I’ve been trying to get answered, and I’d like to follow up on.
First off, I still would like to know whether the congressman is working with his colleagues to rein in the trade war the president has launched with our closest allies.
I don’t deal with that area.
I’m also checking in on my question about Mr. Faso’s views on the extent of presidential power. If the president were to murder someone investigating him, would the congressman vote for impeachment?
OK, I’ll pass that along.
You realize the background for this question, of course, which is the statement by the president’s lawyer that Mr. Trump could kill James Comey and there would be no way to indict him. The only pathway to justice would be via impeachment and conviction. That means that the president is in fact above the law unless Congress is willing to impeach and remove him for a clear crime, such as murder.
If Mr. Faso wouldn’t vote for impeachment in the case of murder, then he is saying that the president is above the law. I really want to know if that’s his view.[I can’t remember the full exchange in here, but at some point she dropped a mention about how questions are usually answered in about two weeks.]
This is the seventh time I’ve called in the last two weeks, so there’s a good chance I’ve spoken to everyone in the office. My name’s Karl Seeley—are you one of the people I’ve spoken to?
I don’t recall speaking to you.
I’ve been asking about the trade war since Monday, June 4th. I’ve been asking about presidential powers since Wednesday, June 6th. Everyone I’ve spoken to has been polite and professional. Everyone I’ve spoken to has said they’ll see that my questions are passed along to the congressman. And yet I still haven’t heard an answer.
So about two weeks is a normal time to get an answer?
Two to three weeks, usually.
OK, so if I haven’t gotten an answer in about three weeks, I should assume he’s blowing me off?
No, ...
I do have one more concern.
On our southern border, agents of our government are separating children from their parents. I was unable to find anything about that on the congressman’s website.
Do you know if he’s made any statement about it?
Yes, he was on NPR last week and said he didn’t agree with it.
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Scars of dictatorship: Part I
The Nazi and communist periods run across Czech history like a scar, and these days it seems to be festering, rather than healing.
In the particular incident I’m referring to, a historian who works at the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes was criticized by the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, for calling out behavior that has echoes of the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes. But we need to back up and look at why there is an Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (ÚSTR).
The underlying idea is that when a nation has been through a dictatorship, its society has been warped by the crimes of that government, and as part of the healing process, it is useful to have a body whose job is to document those crimes and understand the damage they caused.
There are the relatively obvious harms, of people being jailed or killed for saying the wrong thing, having the wrong friends, coming from the wrong parents. Those are bad enough, and the people who were killed are never coming back, and the people who were jailed are never getting those years back. But at least the harm is visible and easy to understand.
Both regimes, however, created a kind of damage that was more woven into the fabric of society, which made it harder to see and much harder to talk about “right” and “wrong.”
I think Americans view a totalitarian regime as some sort of alien organism, something outside the society. There’s the general public, who are “good,” who are “victims,” and there’s the regime, which is perpetrates evil.
Reality is much more complicated.
In the particular incident I’m referring to, a historian who works at the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes was criticized by the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, for calling out behavior that has echoes of the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes. But we need to back up and look at why there is an Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (ÚSTR).
The underlying idea is that when a nation has been through a dictatorship, its society has been warped by the crimes of that government, and as part of the healing process, it is useful to have a body whose job is to document those crimes and understand the damage they caused.
There are the relatively obvious harms, of people being jailed or killed for saying the wrong thing, having the wrong friends, coming from the wrong parents. Those are bad enough, and the people who were killed are never coming back, and the people who were jailed are never getting those years back. But at least the harm is visible and easy to understand.
Both regimes, however, created a kind of damage that was more woven into the fabric of society, which made it harder to see and much harder to talk about “right” and “wrong.”
I think Americans view a totalitarian regime as some sort of alien organism, something outside the society. There’s the general public, who are “good,” who are “victims,” and there’s the regime, which is perpetrates evil.
Reality is much more complicated.
Free lunch: an exploration
A friend linked to this story about a Turkish company that makes wind turbines to be installed between lanes of traffic, where they turn the moving air from passing vehicles into electricity. He wondered whether it would just slow down the buses.
My reply turned into something much too long for a Facebook comment, so I put it here.
It sounds like you’re asking a sort of First-Law question: since energy can’t magically come from nowhere, the energy turning these turbines has to come from somewhere. In other words, you’re asking if this is a free lunch, which is always a good question in the face of a proposed source of energy.
I suppose it’s possible that the turbines alter the airflow in the bus lanes in a way that makes it harder for the buses to push through the air. It that’s true, then yes, the bus engines are having to work harder to cover the same distance at the same speed.
I can also imagine it’s possible that the energy contained in the airflow away from the buses is just being dissipated as waste heat, and these turbines are capturing a piece of that and making it useful.
Or maybe there’s some drag on the buses, but not enough offset the energy generated by the turbines.
At any rate, it seems like it would be an interesting study for someone in aerodynamics (on the other hand, maybe someone who actually knows aerodynamics already knows the answer and would consider it a trivial question).
I was, however, taken aback by the video’s reference to “vertical access” turbines, because the term is “vertical AXIS,” which makes a whole lot more sense. Somewhere along the line in producing this video, there was a person who didn’t look at text, but just wrote down spoken language. Maybe it was the original reporter, in which case that person didn’t know enough about the technology to understand what was being described.
Along similar lines, it says, “1 turbine can create one kilowatt of electricity per hour.” This is a confused statement.
My reply turned into something much too long for a Facebook comment, so I put it here.
It sounds like you’re asking a sort of First-Law question: since energy can’t magically come from nowhere, the energy turning these turbines has to come from somewhere. In other words, you’re asking if this is a free lunch, which is always a good question in the face of a proposed source of energy.
I suppose it’s possible that the turbines alter the airflow in the bus lanes in a way that makes it harder for the buses to push through the air. It that’s true, then yes, the bus engines are having to work harder to cover the same distance at the same speed.
I can also imagine it’s possible that the energy contained in the airflow away from the buses is just being dissipated as waste heat, and these turbines are capturing a piece of that and making it useful.
Or maybe there’s some drag on the buses, but not enough offset the energy generated by the turbines.
At any rate, it seems like it would be an interesting study for someone in aerodynamics (on the other hand, maybe someone who actually knows aerodynamics already knows the answer and would consider it a trivial question).
I was, however, taken aback by the video’s reference to “vertical access” turbines, because the term is “vertical AXIS,” which makes a whole lot more sense. Somewhere along the line in producing this video, there was a person who didn’t look at text, but just wrote down spoken language. Maybe it was the original reporter, in which case that person didn’t know enough about the technology to understand what was being described.
Along similar lines, it says, “1 turbine can create one kilowatt of electricity per hour.” This is a confused statement.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Waste not, want not
Iceland is in the World Cup.
The Netherlands are out.
The Czechs are out.
The US is out (no great surprise, though we had made our way in the last several times).
Italy is out.
But Iceland is in.
A country of 334,000 people has played its way into a berth in the World Cup.
An article in this week’s Respekt talked about the background of this surprising success.*
“20 years ago, Iceland used the money from television broadcast rights from international soccer associations for the launch of a massive system of educating trainers. The island now has the densest network of trained soccer coaches in the world.”
“Children as young as 8 or 9 are being coached exclusively by highly trained coaches who support creativity and the development of young boys’ potential.” [This sentence gives the impression that girls aren’t playing soccer much; I don’t know if that’s true, or just an unfortunate phrasing.] “Loud-mouthed hot-heads who assign squats as a punishment for less talented kids or those who make mistakes have disappeared from the coaches’ benches, as have self-taught daddies.”
In other words, they built from the bottom.
And not just figuratively in terms of training up their trainers.
The Netherlands are out.
The Czechs are out.
The US is out (no great surprise, though we had made our way in the last several times).
Italy is out.
But Iceland is in.
A country of 334,000 people has played its way into a berth in the World Cup.
An article in this week’s Respekt talked about the background of this surprising success.*
“20 years ago, Iceland used the money from television broadcast rights from international soccer associations for the launch of a massive system of educating trainers. The island now has the densest network of trained soccer coaches in the world.”
“Children as young as 8 or 9 are being coached exclusively by highly trained coaches who support creativity and the development of young boys’ potential.” [This sentence gives the impression that girls aren’t playing soccer much; I don’t know if that’s true, or just an unfortunate phrasing.] “Loud-mouthed hot-heads who assign squats as a punishment for less talented kids or those who make mistakes have disappeared from the coaches’ benches, as have self-taught daddies.”
In other words, they built from the bottom.
And not just figuratively in terms of training up their trainers.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Day 9: Not telling, vs. not knowing
The next installment in my continuing futile efforts to see whether my congressman feels like doing his job. (Links to earlier installments are at the end - I'm counting days by number of work days, not number of days I've called.)
I’m checking in on my question from Monday, as to whether the congressman is working with his colleagues to rein in the trade war the president has launched with our closest allies.
I’m not the staffer who deals with that area, but I’ll be sure to write it down and get it to him. [Takes my name and email.]
I’m also checking in on my question about Mr. Faso’s views on the extent of presidential power. Rudy Giuliani says that the president could kill James Comey, and it would still be impossible to indict him; the only remedy would be impeachment. So I’d like to know how Mr. Faso would respond if the president were indeed to murder a person investigating his possible conspiracy with a foreign power. Would he vote to impeach?
I don’t know the answer to that. I’ll be sure to get the question to him.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Day 6: Don’t got no opinion about that
I had been planning a short call, a follow-up from last week’s questions (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday) about presidential powers. But then the weekend happened, so my planned simple question ended up being a brief coda to a significantly longer call.
I saw that Mr. Faso has issued a press release pointing out the damage that could happen to small businesses in upstate New York as a result of the tariffs the president is pursuing.
Uh, huh.
That’s a fine statement as far as it goes, but I was wondering if he were planning to actually do anything.
I haven’t had a chance to talk with the Congressman about that issue specifically, but if you’d like to share your views, I will pass them along.
OK. Here’s the thing: The tariff decision by itself was bad enough, but this weekend, things went badly off the rails.
The president started a trade war with Canada, and then when Canada defended itself, the president’s advisors had the gall to call the Canadian response a betrayal. And as if it weren’t bad enough that they were acting like spoiled children who aren’t getting their way, they threw in a dangerous anti-Semitic dog-whistle by using the phrase “stab in the back.”
This seems to go beyond merely bad policy. It really looks like he is actively trying to tear apart the fabric of the western alliance that has protected our country since the end of World War II.
And the silence from Republicans is, frankly, deafening. Is Mr. Faso concerned with what the president’s actions are doing to our international security?
I haven’t had a chance to talk with the Congressman about that, but I’ll be sure to let him know your concerns.
Friday, June 8, 2018
Day 5 (no Day 4): Chipper, but no answer
I didn't get around to calling yesterday, but here's my follow-up to my calls from Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
Good morning, I’m calling to ask what Mr. Faso’s response would be if the president were to commit a murder.
Uh, we don’t have a statement on that.
I’m asking, of course, because on Sunday Rudy Giuliani went on TV and said that the president could kill James Comey, and nobody in the government would have the authority to indict him.
Ah-ha [recognition of why on Earth I was asking this question]
The only remedy, in Giuliani’s view, is impeachment and removal, and only then could the president be indicted.
In other words, this isn’t a hypothetical—well, it is a hypothetical, but it’s not something that’s absurd to talk about because the president’s own lawyer brought it up. It seems to be part of his own claim of how far his powers extend.
And that makes it a very relevant question for every member of the House: If the president literally killed a person conducting an investigation into the conduct of the president himself, would Mr. Faso vote to impeach?
I will see that he gets this question.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Day 3: Would Faso impeach for murder?
I called again today (as I did yesterday and Monday).
I laid out the basic pieces of the argument:
I laid out the basic pieces of the argument:
- The letter from the president’s lawyers arguing he can shut down any investigation at any time, for any reason, explicitly including an investigation into himself.
- His own tweet saying he has the power to pardon himself.
- Rudy Giuliani’s claim that Trump could literally kill James Comey and he still wouldn’t be subject to indictment—the only remedy is impeachment.
Does Mr. Faso oppose these claims of dictatorial power.
I haven’t spoken to the congressman about that, but I’ll be sure to pass along your question.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Day 2: still no position
I was shorter this time than yesterday, and I didn't get into asking the staffer on the phone his own opinion.
I simply asked whether the Congressman (John Faso, NY-19) had yet taken a position on whether the president is above the law.
"There is no statement about that yet."
"OK."
"Could I get your comment for the Congressman about that?"
"Yes. I want to know what he thinks about the president declaring he has the power to pardon himself, and that he has the power to shut down any investigation at any time, for any reason, including an investigation of himself. That is the essence of dictatorial power, and I'd really like to know the congressman's views on it."
"OK."
"I plan to call every day until I have an answer."
"OK. Could I have your name?"
Gave him my name, from Oneonta. Didn't bother leaving my email. We'll be talking again tomorrow.
Day 3's conversation is here.
I simply asked whether the Congressman (John Faso, NY-19) had yet taken a position on whether the president is above the law.
"There is no statement about that yet."
"OK."
"Could I get your comment for the Congressman about that?"
"Yes. I want to know what he thinks about the president declaring he has the power to pardon himself, and that he has the power to shut down any investigation at any time, for any reason, including an investigation of himself. That is the essence of dictatorial power, and I'd really like to know the congressman's views on it."
"OK."
"I plan to call every day until I have an answer."
"OK. Could I have your name?"
Gave him my name, from Oneonta. Didn't bother leaving my email. We'll be talking again tomorrow.
Day 3's conversation is here.
Monday, June 4, 2018
Not going to get an answer ...
This afternoon I called my Congressman, John Faso (NY-19) to raise the issue of Trump’s declaration that he has unlimited power to pardon himself and to halt any investigation, for any reason whatsoever.
(I was responding to the letter from his lawyers to Mueller back in January that the NY Times published this past Friday, but then later saw that earlier today he himself tweeted the part about unlimited pardon powers.)
It was no surprise that the staffer in Faso’s office didn’t know whether the congressman had a view on the matter. I’ve gotten similar “blank stares” to the question of whether it’s a good idea for Trump to take classified info from Israeli intelligence and share it with Russia’s ambassador and foreign minister.
And I went several rounds with his office on health insurance, receiving a series of letters (e.g., here) that didn’t answer my actual questions, and that displayed fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance works.
On today's call, I said it was important to me to live in a democracy rather than a dictatorship, and that the claims Trump’s lawyers made on his behalf would create the conditions for a dictatorship.
I asked the staffer himself if he had a view on whether it was a good idea for a president to have unlimited powers.
Now, I know it’s bad form to give the staffers a hard time. They’re just doing their jobs, after all. They’re not voting in Congress, so their personal opinions are really not relevant.
But surely there’s a line somewhere, isn’t there?
(I was responding to the letter from his lawyers to Mueller back in January that the NY Times published this past Friday, but then later saw that earlier today he himself tweeted the part about unlimited pardon powers.)
It was no surprise that the staffer in Faso’s office didn’t know whether the congressman had a view on the matter. I’ve gotten similar “blank stares” to the question of whether it’s a good idea for Trump to take classified info from Israeli intelligence and share it with Russia’s ambassador and foreign minister.
And I went several rounds with his office on health insurance, receiving a series of letters (e.g., here) that didn’t answer my actual questions, and that displayed fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance works.
On today's call, I said it was important to me to live in a democracy rather than a dictatorship, and that the claims Trump’s lawyers made on his behalf would create the conditions for a dictatorship.
I asked the staffer himself if he had a view on whether it was a good idea for a president to have unlimited powers.
Now, I know it’s bad form to give the staffers a hard time. They’re just doing their jobs, after all. They’re not voting in Congress, so their personal opinions are really not relevant.
But surely there’s a line somewhere, isn’t there?
Monday, May 28, 2018
Me and Ms. Barker
This morning my Facebook feed fed me a story that was meant to be about a heartwarming event, but ended up being about grammar.
The headline read, “5th grade students thought these two teachers were dating—but watch how one addresses the rumor.”
And the blurb was a quote from one of the two teachers in the story: “Raise your hand if you have heard a rumor about Ms. Barker and I.”
Not surprisingly, the comment that floated to the top of the feed was one calling attention to the teacher’s grammar, pointing out that the correct form would have been “about Ms. Barker and me.”
And the reason the comment rose so high, was that people flooded in to tell the commenter that she was wrong—the correct form, many people insisted, is “about Ms. Barker and I.”
There were those who merely observed something along the lines of, “He was speaking, not writing, and it was an emotional situation. It’s pretty normal, in the course of speech, to say something ungrammatical.”
Fair enough.
Some people objected, “But he’s a math teacher! Don’t knock him for getting grammar wrong.”
First, I would hope that all teachers would have a good command of English, regardless of their particular subject matter. I’ll come back to that with the question of prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar.
Second, the logic behind the correct form feels almost mathematical to me, so it’s hardly a strong defense of the speaker to say, “He’s a mathematician.” I’ll come back to this as well.
The most striking thing in the comment thread was how many people piled in to say the teacher was right.
There was the simple snark, telling the commenter to go ask her English teacher for a refund.
Some correctors of the corrector were quite emphatic:
Ad infinitum.
What’s at play here is presumably the classic over-correction. As a kid, someone said, “Me and Joey were at the park,” and a parent or teacher said, “No, the proper form is, ‘Joey and I were at the park’.”
The correctee just remembered the form “___ and I,” without ever understanding that they were being corrected on two issues simultaneously, one of etiquette (putting others first) and one of grammar (subject vs. object pronouns).
And this is where I see the parallel to math.
The headline read, “5th grade students thought these two teachers were dating—but watch how one addresses the rumor.”
And the blurb was a quote from one of the two teachers in the story: “Raise your hand if you have heard a rumor about Ms. Barker and I.”
Not surprisingly, the comment that floated to the top of the feed was one calling attention to the teacher’s grammar, pointing out that the correct form would have been “about Ms. Barker and me.”
And the reason the comment rose so high, was that people flooded in to tell the commenter that she was wrong—the correct form, many people insisted, is “about Ms. Barker and I.”
There were those who merely observed something along the lines of, “He was speaking, not writing, and it was an emotional situation. It’s pretty normal, in the course of speech, to say something ungrammatical.”
Fair enough.
Some people objected, “But he’s a math teacher! Don’t knock him for getting grammar wrong.”
First, I would hope that all teachers would have a good command of English, regardless of their particular subject matter. I’ll come back to that with the question of prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar.
Second, the logic behind the correct form feels almost mathematical to me, so it’s hardly a strong defense of the speaker to say, “He’s a mathematician.” I’ll come back to this as well.
The most striking thing in the comment thread was how many people piled in to say the teacher was right.
There was the simple snark, telling the commenter to go ask her English teacher for a refund.
Some correctors of the corrector were quite emphatic:
This is an issue that needs to be addressed by Departments of Education - it just proves that people do not know how to use grammar correctly, when people are correcting those who ARE GRAMMATICALLY correct. "Mrs Baker and I" is absolutely correct.Or, “It’s The King and I, not The King and Me”
Ad infinitum.
What’s at play here is presumably the classic over-correction. As a kid, someone said, “Me and Joey were at the park,” and a parent or teacher said, “No, the proper form is, ‘Joey and I were at the park’.”
The correctee just remembered the form “___ and I,” without ever understanding that they were being corrected on two issues simultaneously, one of etiquette (putting others first) and one of grammar (subject vs. object pronouns).
And this is where I see the parallel to math.
Saturday, May 5, 2018
Bad journalism
I just wrote to NPR over their coverage of Trump's NRA speech:
I was listening to the news podcast around noon EDT today (May 5th), and there was coverage of Donald Trump's speech at the NRA convention.
They played tape of his remark how he read about a London hospital with blood all over the floors from stab wounds. That presumably is an assertion that can be checked. Are there any reports of that, and if so, where are those reports? Are they credible?
Trump has a long history of claiming he saw things for which there's absolutely no evidence, such as his line about the Muslims in New Jersey dancing for joy on 9/11.
When someone has a history like that, you need to check whether his statements are grounded in fact. He long ago forfeited any benefit of the doubt.
I was listening to the news podcast around noon EDT today (May 5th), and there was coverage of Donald Trump's speech at the NRA convention.
They played tape of his remark how he read about a London hospital with blood all over the floors from stab wounds. That presumably is an assertion that can be checked. Are there any reports of that, and if so, where are those reports? Are they credible?
Trump has a long history of claiming he saw things for which there's absolutely no evidence, such as his line about the Muslims in New Jersey dancing for joy on 9/11.
When someone has a history like that, you need to check whether his statements are grounded in fact. He long ago forfeited any benefit of the doubt.
Friday, April 27, 2018
Blind justice
Can you go into debt for something you logically can’t owe?
It sounds like a neat trick, but the Czech justice system is Just That Good.
Prague’s public transit system is an honor system with inspections.
You are required to have a valid ticket in order to ride, but they don’t check you on your way onto the bus with a farebox, or on your way into the subway with a turnstyle.
But they carry out random inspections, and if they ask you for a ticket and you don’t have one, you pay a substantial fine—currently 800 Kč (about $40) if you pay the inspector right there, or 1,500 Kč if you simply take the ticket and pay later.
People who are blind are entitled to free travel on public transportation. The transit system issues you an ID card explaining your condition, and you show that when the inspectors come around asking to see people’s tickets.
In other words, it is logically impossible for you to be riding without a ticket.
Vladimir Patera lost his sight in childhood and has the appropriate travel card from Prague Public Transit, so he was surprised when he started getting debt collection notices relating to incidents of riding without a ticket between 1998 and 2003.
(Details of Patera’s case are from “Úspěch Vladimira Patery [Vladimir Patera’s success]”, Respekt, April 23-29, 2018, pp. 27-8.)
Maybe someone had misused the birth certificate he’d lost while moving house? He’d show his transit ID and the mistake would be recognized.
But two levels of courts said that Patera should have defended himself what is known as the “discovery process,” and that once a debt-collection proceeding has been started, it’s too late to deal with the factual substance of the case.
Patera said he had never received notice of the discovery process, but that didn’t help him.
The debt collectors garnished his wages and ended up collecting 200,000 Kč from him.
It sounds like a neat trick, but the Czech justice system is Just That Good.
Prague’s public transit system is an honor system with inspections.
You are required to have a valid ticket in order to ride, but they don’t check you on your way onto the bus with a farebox, or on your way into the subway with a turnstyle.
But they carry out random inspections, and if they ask you for a ticket and you don’t have one, you pay a substantial fine—currently 800 Kč (about $40) if you pay the inspector right there, or 1,500 Kč if you simply take the ticket and pay later.
People who are blind are entitled to free travel on public transportation. The transit system issues you an ID card explaining your condition, and you show that when the inspectors come around asking to see people’s tickets.
In other words, it is logically impossible for you to be riding without a ticket.
Vladimir Patera lost his sight in childhood and has the appropriate travel card from Prague Public Transit, so he was surprised when he started getting debt collection notices relating to incidents of riding without a ticket between 1998 and 2003.
(Details of Patera’s case are from “Úspěch Vladimira Patery [Vladimir Patera’s success]”, Respekt, April 23-29, 2018, pp. 27-8.)
Maybe someone had misused the birth certificate he’d lost while moving house? He’d show his transit ID and the mistake would be recognized.
But two levels of courts said that Patera should have defended himself what is known as the “discovery process,” and that once a debt-collection proceeding has been started, it’s too late to deal with the factual substance of the case.
Patera said he had never received notice of the discovery process, but that didn’t help him.
The debt collectors garnished his wages and ended up collecting 200,000 Kč from him.
Monday, April 23, 2018
The gun-lover's Catch-22
It’s never the gun.
Whenever something happens that looks like it might, there’s a need to show that there’s some other reason this horrible thing happened that, just coincidentally, involved a gun being fired and killing people.
One popular approach is to claim that the thing never really happened, but was instead staged as an excuse to come and take everyone’s guns.
So those people claiming to be Florida high-school students who had survived a shooting were actually “crisis actors” playing the role of apparently not-sufficiently-traumatized teenagers.
And of course the murder of 20 children and 6 teachers in Newtown, CT, was all a hoax, and the “grieving” parents were actors who hadn’t actually lost children.
I haven’t yet seen anyone claim a flat-out hoax in this case, but maybe they’re being discouraged from that by seeing Alex Jones get sued for defamation over his Newtown “hoax” stories.
But there’s still the trustworthy “FBI screwed up” story line.
People used it after Parkland, and it’s now been trotted out again in the Waffle House shooting near Nashville.
The starting point for the claim is the FBI’s statement that they investigated the murderer last summer, combined with the fact that they nonetheless didn’t stop the murders.
Here’s the FBI’s statement, in a rush transcript from CNN:
Whenever something happens that looks like it might, there’s a need to show that there’s some other reason this horrible thing happened that, just coincidentally, involved a gun being fired and killing people.
One popular approach is to claim that the thing never really happened, but was instead staged as an excuse to come and take everyone’s guns.
So those people claiming to be Florida high-school students who had survived a shooting were actually “crisis actors” playing the role of apparently not-sufficiently-traumatized teenagers.
And of course the murder of 20 children and 6 teachers in Newtown, CT, was all a hoax, and the “grieving” parents were actors who hadn’t actually lost children.
I haven’t yet seen anyone claim a flat-out hoax in this case, but maybe they’re being discouraged from that by seeing Alex Jones get sued for defamation over his Newtown “hoax” stories.
But there’s still the trustworthy “FBI screwed up” story line.
People used it after Parkland, and it’s now been trotted out again in the Waffle House shooting near Nashville.
The starting point for the claim is the FBI’s statement that they investigated the murderer last summer, combined with the fact that they nonetheless didn’t stop the murders.
Here’s the FBI’s statement, in a rush transcript from CNN:
In July of 2017, the FBI's Springfield, Illinois Field Office received information regarding Travis Reinking from the U.S. Social Service [presumably “Secret” Service]. In coordination with the Secret Service and state and local law enforcement, the FBI took investigative steps to include database reviews and interviews. Coordinate action was taken with the Illinois State Police to revoke Mr. Reinking's prior arm owner's identification card and the Tazeville, County Sheriff's Office to then remove firearms from his possession.
After conducting all appropriate investigation, the FBI closed this assessment on Mr. Reinking in October of 2017. I feel confident the FBI took the appropriate steps and did everything within our federal jurisdiction that we could at the time. So thank you for your time.It may seem pretty straightforward to you or me, but if you go to the news site Grabien News, you can find it framed as, “FBI admits being warned about Waffle House killer, defends not taking further action.” (I don’t feel like putting up the link; if you use that headline plus Grabien, you should be able to find it.)
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
The Nikulin file
Amidst the insanity that is closing in around Donald Trump, a seemingly bit player is a Russian named Yevgeniy Nikulin. But while he’s peripheral to the events in the U.S., he’s been a prominent part of the political narrative here, and the growing tug-of-war over whether the country will continue the alignment with the U.S. and Western Europe that it’s built since 1989, or will instead revert to its post-World-War-II position in Russia’s orbit.
As the Guardian reported all the way back in January, 2017, Nikulin was arrested in Prague the previous October (i.e., of 2016) “on an Interpol arrest warrant issued by US authorities.”
The U.S. requested his extradited in connection with various alleged pieces of hacking, including on the site Formspring, used by Anthony Weiner for his public-self-immolation-via-sexting.
But once he was arrested, it turned out that the Russian government wanted him extradited to their country, on allegations from 2009 that he hacked into a bank account and stole 110,000 rubles.
(If I can dig up that article, I’ll come back and amend this.)
As it turns out, Nikulin was finally extradited to the U.S. just at the end of last month and has entered a plea of “not guilty” in San Francisco.
We’ll see where his case goes from here and whether and how it ends up being linked with Russian interference in the 2016 election. According to the Guardian last year, “One theory is Nikulin – even if not personally involved in the election hacking – may know other hackers who were.”
But it was also something of a flashpoint here in the Czech Republic.
As the Guardian reported all the way back in January, 2017, Nikulin was arrested in Prague the previous October (i.e., of 2016) “on an Interpol arrest warrant issued by US authorities.”
The U.S. requested his extradited in connection with various alleged pieces of hacking, including on the site Formspring, used by Anthony Weiner for his public-self-immolation-via-sexting.
But once he was arrested, it turned out that the Russian government wanted him extradited to their country, on allegations from 2009 that he hacked into a bank account and stole 110,000 rubles.
“He was never formally accused at that time. I think the reason is that he was recruited [by the Russian security services],” said Ondrej Kundra, political editor with the Czech weekly magazine Respekt, which has reported that the Russian services offer alleged offenders immunity from prosecution in exchange for collaboration.At the time of that Guardian article, the expectation was that the Czech Ministry of Justice would make a determination by the end of February—of 2017! That obviously didn’t happen, because last fall there was an article in Respekt about him still being held in Czech prison, and under somewhat unusual conditions. I don’t have the article at hand, but if memory serves, his detention was accompanied by special security measures, not because he was especially dangerous or a flight risk, but because of the sense that somebody might try to do him in while in prison.
(If I can dig up that article, I’ll come back and amend this.)
As it turns out, Nikulin was finally extradited to the U.S. just at the end of last month and has entered a plea of “not guilty” in San Francisco.
We’ll see where his case goes from here and whether and how it ends up being linked with Russian interference in the 2016 election. According to the Guardian last year, “One theory is Nikulin – even if not personally involved in the election hacking – may know other hackers who were.”
But it was also something of a flashpoint here in the Czech Republic.
Monday, April 16, 2018
A market for democracy
When the Women’s March was being organized for the day after Trump’s inauguration, I was happy to see a statement of opposition to the new regime, and I was glad to see my wife joining some friends in going to D.C. to add their voices to that statement, but I didn’t expect anything larger to come from it. I’d seen demonstrations come and go without having any noticeable effect.
I’m glad I was wrong.
The women organizing the march had no intention of letting it be an end in itself, some sort of cathartic yawp after which everyone would go home self-satisfied.
The organizers, and the participants, and the supporters from a distance have all succeeded in making the March an energizing beginning, not an end. And you can see the results in voter registration, voter turnout in special elections, and record numbers of candidates, particularly women candidates.
A week later, when Trump announced his first attempt at a travel ban, I was heartened to see the rapid and vociferous response at airports around the country.
The march and the airport protests were visible signs of a public that had been roused from a political torpor.
But it’s the registering, and voting, and running for office that matters in the long run.
And the question is, how do we keep people energized for those activities over time?
Protesting at airports is necessary when the government is undermining the Constitution, but in the long run it’s not viable to spend your whole life preventing damage to society by running out into the street every week, or even every few months.
The point of a democratic republic is to choose people to run public affairs competently and more or less in line with the will of the majority, within the limits of the constitution.
There’s a tricky paradox here, related to some basic insights of economics.
I’m glad I was wrong.
The women organizing the march had no intention of letting it be an end in itself, some sort of cathartic yawp after which everyone would go home self-satisfied.
The organizers, and the participants, and the supporters from a distance have all succeeded in making the March an energizing beginning, not an end. And you can see the results in voter registration, voter turnout in special elections, and record numbers of candidates, particularly women candidates.
A week later, when Trump announced his first attempt at a travel ban, I was heartened to see the rapid and vociferous response at airports around the country.
The march and the airport protests were visible signs of a public that had been roused from a political torpor.
But it’s the registering, and voting, and running for office that matters in the long run.
And the question is, how do we keep people energized for those activities over time?
Protesting at airports is necessary when the government is undermining the Constitution, but in the long run it’s not viable to spend your whole life preventing damage to society by running out into the street every week, or even every few months.
The point of a democratic republic is to choose people to run public affairs competently and more or less in line with the will of the majority, within the limits of the constitution.
There’s a tricky paradox here, related to some basic insights of economics.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Know your audience
Yesterday evening I got an invite in my email.
It was from Josef Seják, an environmental economist here in Prague, and a man who played a crucial role in enabling my stay here seven years ago after taking an interest in an article I’d written.
The invitation was to a recital by his daughter, Barbora K. Sejáková, a well-regarded pianist in Czech chamber and solo music.
The recital was in a gothic former church, a small piece of medieval Prague lurking behind a garden wall in the Malá strana district, just below Petřín Gardens.
It was from Josef Seják, an environmental economist here in Prague, and a man who played a crucial role in enabling my stay here seven years ago after taking an interest in an article I’d written.
The invitation was to a recital by his daughter, Barbora K. Sejáková, a well-regarded pianist in Czech chamber and solo music.
The recital was in a gothic former church, a small piece of medieval Prague lurking behind a garden wall in the Malá strana district, just below Petřín Gardens.
Friday, April 6, 2018
Why is climate change hard to solve? - VI
(Sixth part of a series)
Part IV in this line of posts looked at time paths of individual countries in terms of GDP per capita and energy efficiency, measured in terms of tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per million $ of GDP.
Rich countries have been improving in this regard for decades. Poorer countries came closer to the present with increasing energy use per GDP, but even they have shifted to decreasing energy use (i.e., increasing efficiency).
That’s the good news.
But while the increasing efficiency is real, it seemed perhaps to be slowing as it approached 50 toe per million $ GDP, as if that were some sort of limit that would be hard to break through.
Part V looked at country time paths of a different sort, comparing GDP per capita with energy use per capita. The application there was to look at the phenomenon of “decoupling,” in which a country manages to keep its GDP growing even as its energy use is stable or even slightly decreasing.
With those same GDP-and-energy paths, you can make an argument that 50 toe per million $ is not an unbreachable boundary, but that there is nonetheless a serious problem in terms of total use.
The key to the visual representation is to take the path diagrams from Part V, that show energy use per capita, and find a way to represent efficiency on them as well.
And there’s actually a clean way to do this.
Part IV in this line of posts looked at time paths of individual countries in terms of GDP per capita and energy efficiency, measured in terms of tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per million $ of GDP.
Rich countries have been improving in this regard for decades. Poorer countries came closer to the present with increasing energy use per GDP, but even they have shifted to decreasing energy use (i.e., increasing efficiency).
That’s the good news.
But while the increasing efficiency is real, it seemed perhaps to be slowing as it approached 50 toe per million $ GDP, as if that were some sort of limit that would be hard to break through.
Part V looked at country time paths of a different sort, comparing GDP per capita with energy use per capita. The application there was to look at the phenomenon of “decoupling,” in which a country manages to keep its GDP growing even as its energy use is stable or even slightly decreasing.
 |
| Figure 1 (from the end of Part V) |
With those same GDP-and-energy paths, you can make an argument that 50 toe per million $ is not an unbreachable boundary, but that there is nonetheless a serious problem in terms of total use.
The key to the visual representation is to take the path diagrams from Part V, that show energy use per capita, and find a way to represent efficiency on them as well.
And there’s actually a clean way to do this.
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Whaddayaknow?
 |
| From here |
Back in Soviet times, the two main newspapers were Pravda (The Truth) and Izvestia (The News). And the standard joke was,
“There’s no truth in The News and there’s no news in The Truth.”
It was understood that the Communist Party, through its own organ Pravda and through the “government” newspaper Izvestia, was telling the people what it felt they needed to know. People read the paper, but also tried to divine what the authorities might be hiding.
The extent of the propaganda was evident in the experience of one of my Russian-language professors at Indiana University. In the summer of either 1986 or 1987 he led a student group to the Soviet Union, and they were supposed to visit Sochi, on the Black Sea. But once they were in the USSR, they were informed that they would be unable to go Sochi because of “civil unrest” in the city.
When they got back to the U.S., my professor learned that the real cause was a catastrophic malfunction of the city’s sewage system. As he commented, adopting a mock-Russian accent, “Yes, is civil unrest in Sochi. Can only mean that streets are full of shit.”
The remarkable thing, of course, was what it revealed about the information policy of the Soviet regime. It was understandable that they would try to hide the reality of what bad shape their infrastructure was in. It was more surprising that they would rather give foreigners the impression that people were rioting in one of their cities.
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Why is climate change hard to solve? - V
(Fifth in a series; Parts I, II, III, and IV)
The previous installment looked at the strong trend toward increasing efficiency, measured as tonnes of oil equivalent per million dollars (with 2016 purchasing power) of GDP, or toe / million $ GDP.
Today’s post, like yesterday’s looks at the paths of individual countries over time, but with a slightly different metric, in order to examine the concept of “decoupling.”
Figure 1 shows Norway and Switzerland. Both countries have paths that start off by rising to the right: as they are getting richer, they are also using more energy. But each one also hits a point where that trend stops.
Norway’s rise slows after 1990, and since 2000 it’s energy use (per capita) has declined somewhat (with some pretty large year-to-year fluctuations).
Switzerland’s rise stops in 1986, and the country’s energy use has trended very slightly downward since then.
Figure 2 shows three more wealthy countries. Germany’s rising energy use slowed after 1974 and then turned into slow decline (like Switzerland’s) after 1985.
Canada’s rise slowed after 1977, slowed further after 1996, and has fallen noticeably since 2005.
The U.S. hit its all-time peak in 1973 (the year of the Arab oil embargo), then hit a trough in 1982, before climbing slowly back to a secondary peak in 2000. The recession of 2007-09 pulled energy use back down, and by 2014 it had not moved back up from that lower level.
These paths that are flat or slightly declining are illustrations of a concept known as “decoupling.”
The previous installment looked at the strong trend toward increasing efficiency, measured as tonnes of oil equivalent per million dollars (with 2016 purchasing power) of GDP, or toe / million $ GDP.
Today’s post, like yesterday’s looks at the paths of individual countries over time, but with a slightly different metric, in order to examine the concept of “decoupling.”
Figure 1 shows Norway and Switzerland. Both countries have paths that start off by rising to the right: as they are getting richer, they are also using more energy. But each one also hits a point where that trend stops.
 |
| Figure 1. Data from BP Statistical Review and Penn World Tables. More here |
Norway’s rise slows after 1990, and since 2000 it’s energy use (per capita) has declined somewhat (with some pretty large year-to-year fluctuations).
Switzerland’s rise stops in 1986, and the country’s energy use has trended very slightly downward since then.
Figure 2 shows three more wealthy countries. Germany’s rising energy use slowed after 1974 and then turned into slow decline (like Switzerland’s) after 1985.
 |
| Figure 2. Data from BP Statistical Review and Penn World Tables. More here |
Canada’s rise slowed after 1977, slowed further after 1996, and has fallen noticeably since 2005.
The U.S. hit its all-time peak in 1973 (the year of the Arab oil embargo), then hit a trough in 1982, before climbing slowly back to a secondary peak in 2000. The recession of 2007-09 pulled energy use back down, and by 2014 it had not moved back up from that lower level.
These paths that are flat or slightly declining are illustrations of a concept known as “decoupling.”
Monday, April 2, 2018
Why is climate change hard to solve? - IV
(Fourth in a series)
In this trip through some basic data on energy and economic output, I’ve looked at the strong relationship between those two things, an argument that energy use causes wealth (rather than wealth causing energy use), and evidence for increasing energy efficiency over time.
The evidence on energy efficiency was in the form of cross sections, as in Figure 1. Each color represents a particular year, and each point on a chart represents an individual country in one of those years. The further to the right, the richer the country, and the further down, the more energy-efficient. (For data sources, see here.)
Following the black circles (1970), to the orange squares (1990), to the blue circles (2014), it looks like the mass is moving down and to the right over time. That combination suggests countries getting richer and more energy-efficient as time goes on.
(Note also the black dashed line at 50 toe per million dollars of GDP. In 1970 and 1990 there are a couple of very poor countries with better efficiency than that. By 2014, several rich countries have approached that level, but no countries (rich or poor) have surpassed it.)
While Figure 1 suggests overall movement toward improved efficiency, we don’t see the dots from a particular country: we can’t trace the US, or Czechia, or any other individual country as it changes from 1970 to 1990, or 1990 to 2014.
In contrast, Figure 2 shows exactly this kind of path for the US (blue) and the Czech Republic (black). The US data run from 1965 to 2014, whereas the Czech data only go from 1990 to 2014 (the earlier Czech data were bound up with Slovakia’s data as part of Czechoslovakia).
There are two main things to note here.
In this trip through some basic data on energy and economic output, I’ve looked at the strong relationship between those two things, an argument that energy use causes wealth (rather than wealth causing energy use), and evidence for increasing energy efficiency over time.
The evidence on energy efficiency was in the form of cross sections, as in Figure 1. Each color represents a particular year, and each point on a chart represents an individual country in one of those years. The further to the right, the richer the country, and the further down, the more energy-efficient. (For data sources, see here.)
 |
| Figure 1. Data from BP Statistical Review and Penn World Tables |
(Note also the black dashed line at 50 toe per million dollars of GDP. In 1970 and 1990 there are a couple of very poor countries with better efficiency than that. By 2014, several rich countries have approached that level, but no countries (rich or poor) have surpassed it.)
While Figure 1 suggests overall movement toward improved efficiency, we don’t see the dots from a particular country: we can’t trace the US, or Czechia, or any other individual country as it changes from 1970 to 1990, or 1990 to 2014.
In contrast, Figure 2 shows exactly this kind of path for the US (blue) and the Czech Republic (black). The US data run from 1965 to 2014, whereas the Czech data only go from 1990 to 2014 (the earlier Czech data were bound up with Slovakia’s data as part of Czechoslovakia).
 |
| Figure 2. Data from BP Statistical Review and Penn World Tables |
There are two main things to note here.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Why is climate change hard to solve? - III
(The third in a series)
The first post in this run looked at the crude data showing the strong link between energy use and wealth.
But a relationship by itself doesn’t indicate causality. The second post presented evidence suggesting that the relationship doesn’t run from wealth to energy use, and may well run the other way.
The data from the first post also suggested an increase in the energy efficiency of economies over time, which is the subject of this post. (For the sources of the data in all these posts, see here.)
As a reminder, we measure the energy efficiency of an economy by the energy used per unit of GDP (in this case, it will be in terms of tonnes of oil equivalent [toe] per $1,000 of GDP. A smaller number means fewer toe per $1,000 GDP, which means a more efficient economy.
One hypothesis is that countries get more efficient as they get wealthier, and there are a few reasons to think that might be true.
One way to examine this hypothesis is through a cross section, looking at our sample of countries in a given year. Each mark on the chart represents a country, and its wealth (GDP per capita) is shown by horizontal position, while its efficiency (tonnes of oil equivalent, or toe, per million dollars of GDP) is reflected by its vertical position.
Since using less energy per GDP represents greater efficiency, our hypothesis suggests that countries should be spread across the chart roughly as shown in Figure 1, with richer countries (far to the right) having higher efficiency (being relatively low), while poorer countries (at the left) don’t have good efficiency (so they’re positioned high on the chart).
Figure 2 shows a cross section for 1970, and ... it’s not clear.
The first post in this run looked at the crude data showing the strong link between energy use and wealth.
But a relationship by itself doesn’t indicate causality. The second post presented evidence suggesting that the relationship doesn’t run from wealth to energy use, and may well run the other way.
The data from the first post also suggested an increase in the energy efficiency of economies over time, which is the subject of this post. (For the sources of the data in all these posts, see here.)
As a reminder, we measure the energy efficiency of an economy by the energy used per unit of GDP (in this case, it will be in terms of tonnes of oil equivalent [toe] per $1,000 of GDP. A smaller number means fewer toe per $1,000 GDP, which means a more efficient economy.
One hypothesis is that countries get more efficient as they get wealthier, and there are a few reasons to think that might be true.
- A richer country can afford to build more efficient factories, more efficient houses, more efficient cars.
- As a country develops, its service sector tends to grow faster than its industrial sector. Services use less energy per worker than industry, so that shift will reduce the country’s energy per GDP.
- A piece of why the industrial sector shrinks (in relative terms) is that a more developed country may start to import a greater quantity of the goods it uses (steel, cars, TV’s, computers, etc.), and pay for that with exports of services (movies, banking, tourism, education, etc.). So the richer countries have taken some of the production of things they’re going to consume and moved it to poorer countries.
One way to examine this hypothesis is through a cross section, looking at our sample of countries in a given year. Each mark on the chart represents a country, and its wealth (GDP per capita) is shown by horizontal position, while its efficiency (tonnes of oil equivalent, or toe, per million dollars of GDP) is reflected by its vertical position.
Since using less energy per GDP represents greater efficiency, our hypothesis suggests that countries should be spread across the chart roughly as shown in Figure 1, with richer countries (far to the right) having higher efficiency (being relatively low), while poorer countries (at the left) don’t have good efficiency (so they’re positioned high on the chart).
 |
| Figure 1. Hypothesized relationship between wealth and efficiency |
Figure 2 shows a cross section for 1970, and ... it’s not clear.
 |
| Figure 2. Data from BP Statistical Review and Penn World Tables |
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Why is climate change hard to solve? - II
This is a follow-up to a post taking a rough look at data about energy use and economic activity.
The first one showed the strong correlation between energy use and wealth, and ended with the question of which direction the causality went: does using more energy cause countries to be rich, or does being rich cause countries to use more energy?
Either one is theoretically plausible.
Rich countries eat more food per capita (measured in calories) and they eat more expensive food (measured as a greater portion of their food coming from animal sources—meat and dairy). It’s unlikely that they’re rich because they eat more food and eat more animal-based foods. Rather, they eat the way they do because people like to eat more, people like to eat animal-based foods, and people in rich countries can afford to do those things.
The analogous argument would run that people like doing things that use energy, and people in rich countries can afford to do more of those things, so they use more energy.
I’m inclined toward the opposite causality, that rich countries generally get that way by using more energy.
The theoretical basis for that view is that every economic activity requires energy. Some require more than others (earning $40,000 cutting hair takes less energy than earning $40,000 making steel). And the energy requirements of a given activity can change over time as technology changes. But every economic activity requires some energy, so at some level, having more economic activity (a higher GDP) should require more energy.
Faced with a theoretical argument pointing in each direction, it would be good to have some empirical indication of which force is more likely in play.
A test suggests itself from the fact that energy prices have shown significant volatility over the last 45 years, with oil spikes in 1973 and 1979, a crash in 1986, a trough in 1998, a new peak in 2008 and then continued ups and downs more recently.
If rich countries are buying energy sort of as a luxury, because they can afford it, we should see them buying less energy when prices go up, and more energy when prices go down. We should see more energy use per GDP in times of low energy prices, and less energy use per GDP in times of high prices.
If countries are getting rich because they’re using lots of energy, then we should see no particular connection between the energy/GDP relationship and energy prices. High energy prices may cause countries to buy and use less energy, but that will also be reflected in reduced economic activity, rather than in decreased energy per unit of GDP.
The first one showed the strong correlation between energy use and wealth, and ended with the question of which direction the causality went: does using more energy cause countries to be rich, or does being rich cause countries to use more energy?
Either one is theoretically plausible.
Rich countries eat more food per capita (measured in calories) and they eat more expensive food (measured as a greater portion of their food coming from animal sources—meat and dairy). It’s unlikely that they’re rich because they eat more food and eat more animal-based foods. Rather, they eat the way they do because people like to eat more, people like to eat animal-based foods, and people in rich countries can afford to do those things.
The analogous argument would run that people like doing things that use energy, and people in rich countries can afford to do more of those things, so they use more energy.
I’m inclined toward the opposite causality, that rich countries generally get that way by using more energy.
The theoretical basis for that view is that every economic activity requires energy. Some require more than others (earning $40,000 cutting hair takes less energy than earning $40,000 making steel). And the energy requirements of a given activity can change over time as technology changes. But every economic activity requires some energy, so at some level, having more economic activity (a higher GDP) should require more energy.
Faced with a theoretical argument pointing in each direction, it would be good to have some empirical indication of which force is more likely in play.
A test suggests itself from the fact that energy prices have shown significant volatility over the last 45 years, with oil spikes in 1973 and 1979, a crash in 1986, a trough in 1998, a new peak in 2008 and then continued ups and downs more recently.
If rich countries are buying energy sort of as a luxury, because they can afford it, we should see them buying less energy when prices go up, and more energy when prices go down. We should see more energy use per GDP in times of low energy prices, and less energy use per GDP in times of high prices.
If countries are getting rich because they’re using lots of energy, then we should see no particular connection between the energy/GDP relationship and energy prices. High energy prices may cause countries to buy and use less energy, but that will also be reflected in reduced economic activity, rather than in decreased energy per unit of GDP.
Friday, March 30, 2018
Why is climate change hard to solve?
The question in the title has a pretty obvious answer:
It arose from a short module I did here at the Faculty of Economics and Management at the Czech University of Life Sciences (Provozně ekonomická fakulta České zemědělské university), concerning energy economics.
The field is huge, and there’s no way to cover everything that should be covered in the time allotted, so I thought I’d lay a foundation by looking at big-picture connections between energy and the economy. Toward that end, I decided to milk two particular data sets and see how much insight I could squeeze out of them without any fancy techniques. The result is a series of data images that I think tell a story accessible to a broad audience, so I’m posting them here.
The energy data are from the 2017 edition of the Statistical Review of World Energy put out by British Petroleum. They supply data on the extraction and use of all the major and semi-major forms of energy, not for every country in the world, but for many of them (if your country is big and/or rich and/or produces a lot of oil, you’re likely to be in the dataset).
The economic data are from the Penn World Tables, an ongoing project that attempts to present basic economic data from every country in the world, in a way that is methodologically consistent across all countries, so that you can make meaningful comparisons among countries.
More information about the underlying data is in the accompanying post on data.
The first set of images is simply a comparison of GDP per capita and energy use per capita—in other words, we’re looking for a connection between the level of energy use and the level of economic activity.
In Figure 1, each dot is a country, and its position on the graph shows its GDP per capita (further to the right is richer) and its energy use per capita (further up is using more energy).
The most obvious feature is that almost every country is bunched to the left, with wealth less than $50,000 per capita. The two exceptions are Qatar and—to an astonishing degree—United Arab Emirates. In other words, our outliers are two small states whose economy is founded on extracting and exporting oil.
Figure 2 does the same thing for 2014, and again we have a couple of outliers, with Qatar in the far upper right (very wealthy and using a lot of energy) and Trinidad & Tobago toward the upper left (not that wealthy, but using a lot of energy).
This pattern repeats itself in intervening years, where outliers are very small countries, and/or economies based on oil exports.
- Preventing the worst climate-change outcomes means using less fossil fuel
- Fossil fuels make us rich
- We don’t want to be less rich than we are
It arose from a short module I did here at the Faculty of Economics and Management at the Czech University of Life Sciences (Provozně ekonomická fakulta České zemědělské university), concerning energy economics.
The field is huge, and there’s no way to cover everything that should be covered in the time allotted, so I thought I’d lay a foundation by looking at big-picture connections between energy and the economy. Toward that end, I decided to milk two particular data sets and see how much insight I could squeeze out of them without any fancy techniques. The result is a series of data images that I think tell a story accessible to a broad audience, so I’m posting them here.
The energy data are from the 2017 edition of the Statistical Review of World Energy put out by British Petroleum. They supply data on the extraction and use of all the major and semi-major forms of energy, not for every country in the world, but for many of them (if your country is big and/or rich and/or produces a lot of oil, you’re likely to be in the dataset).
The economic data are from the Penn World Tables, an ongoing project that attempts to present basic economic data from every country in the world, in a way that is methodologically consistent across all countries, so that you can make meaningful comparisons among countries.
More information about the underlying data is in the accompanying post on data.
The first set of images is simply a comparison of GDP per capita and energy use per capita—in other words, we’re looking for a connection between the level of energy use and the level of economic activity.
In Figure 1, each dot is a country, and its position on the graph shows its GDP per capita (further to the right is richer) and its energy use per capita (further up is using more energy).
 |
| Figure 1. Data from BP Statistical Review and Penn World Tables |
The most obvious feature is that almost every country is bunched to the left, with wealth less than $50,000 per capita. The two exceptions are Qatar and—to an astonishing degree—United Arab Emirates. In other words, our outliers are two small states whose economy is founded on extracting and exporting oil.
Figure 2 does the same thing for 2014, and again we have a couple of outliers, with Qatar in the far upper right (very wealthy and using a lot of energy) and Trinidad & Tobago toward the upper left (not that wealthy, but using a lot of energy).
 |
| Figure 2. Data from BP Statistical Review and Penn World Tables |
This pattern repeats itself in intervening years, where outliers are very small countries, and/or economies based on oil exports.
Why is climate change hard? - Data note
This is a post to accompany Why is climate change hard to solve?.
The GDP and population are from the Penn World Tables, while the energy use is from the 2017 edition of the Statistical Review of World Energy put out by British Petroleum.
The GDP and population are from the Penn World Tables, while the energy use is from the 2017 edition of the Statistical Review of World Energy put out by British Petroleum.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
A Russian interlude
A week ago a friend asked on Facebook if I had any recommendations for what to read on Russia. I came up empty because my reading on the subject lately has generally been from the Czech press, and while this friend happens to speak Czech, she was asking for her circle of generally American FB friends.
But I remembered her query when I was reading this week’s issue of the newsmagazine Respekt, with its cover article on “Putin the Conqueror: The Russian president is successfully building an alternative to the Western world,” by Jiří Sobota, Ondřej Kundra, and Petr Horký.
The authors draw in part on Timothy Snyder’s book The Road to Unfreedom, in particular his point that Putin’s view of the world differs from the West’s.
The West (in Respekt’s summary of Snyder’s argument) sees history as flowing inevitably toward a better future through international connection and cooperation. There will be steps backward and other problems, but they can’t change the course of the powerful river of history.
But I remembered her query when I was reading this week’s issue of the newsmagazine Respekt, with its cover article on “Putin the Conqueror: The Russian president is successfully building an alternative to the Western world,” by Jiří Sobota, Ondřej Kundra, and Petr Horký.
The authors draw in part on Timothy Snyder’s book The Road to Unfreedom, in particular his point that Putin’s view of the world differs from the West’s.
The West (in Respekt’s summary of Snyder’s argument) sees history as flowing inevitably toward a better future through international connection and cooperation. There will be steps backward and other problems, but they can’t change the course of the powerful river of history.
Monday, March 26, 2018
The apotheosis of individualistic idiocy
Rick Santorum thinks the students should be looking to solve their problems themselves, rather than asking legislator to solve the students’ problems for them.
Among his helpful bits of advice is to learn CPR—because that’s a really useful skill for helping someone who has an internal organ that “looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively.”
There’s plenty of idiocy in what he’s saying, and he’s getting plenty of well-deserved derision for it.
But this particular exchange gets at the dead-end that American conservativism has become.
Among his helpful bits of advice is to learn CPR—because that’s a really useful skill for helping someone who has an internal organ that “looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively.”
There’s plenty of idiocy in what he’s saying, and he’s getting plenty of well-deserved derision for it.
But this particular exchange gets at the dead-end that American conservativism has become.
“How are they looking at other people?” host Brianna Keilar interjected. “They took action.”
“They took action to ask someone to pass a law,” Santorum said.
“They didn’t take action to say ‘How do I as an individual deal with this problem? How am I going to do something about stopping bullying within my own community? What am I going to do to actually help respond to a shooter?’”
He said students should articulate “how I’m going to help the situation instead of going and protesting and saying, ‘Oh, someone else needs to pass a law to protect me.’”Santorum’s position only makes sense if you think that government action is inherently, fundamentally illegitimate.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Tearing up the script
Jennifer Rubin remarks on how quickly the teens—not just from Parkland, but from all over—have engineered a shift in attitudes that adults have been trying and failing to accomplish for years. (H/T Jason Antrosio)
It hit me earlier today that while the teens pushing this are certainly savvy (and I mean that in a good way), they're not being coyly tactical about their core message itself.
They're not wondering if they're asking for too much.
They're not second-guessing whether they might be losing "moderates" by being too "radical."
They're not afraid of the NRA and they're not backing down when gun folks belittle them as Tide-pod-eating morons or even call them "crisis actors."
They’re clever, but their savvy has been in how to get their message out and bring people to their side by the force of their argument (and their lived experience), rather than in trimming their sails and trying to tweak their message to make it acceptable to existing opinion and avoid stepping on big, scary toes.
If the teens truly have shifted the conversation, maybe it’s because they haven’t fallen into the trap of being too clever by half.
It hit me earlier today that while the teens pushing this are certainly savvy (and I mean that in a good way), they're not being coyly tactical about their core message itself.
They're not wondering if they're asking for too much.
They're not second-guessing whether they might be losing "moderates" by being too "radical."
They're not afraid of the NRA and they're not backing down when gun folks belittle them as Tide-pod-eating morons or even call them "crisis actors."
They’re clever, but their savvy has been in how to get their message out and bring people to their side by the force of their argument (and their lived experience), rather than in trimming their sails and trying to tweak their message to make it acceptable to existing opinion and avoid stepping on big, scary toes.
If the teens truly have shifted the conversation, maybe it’s because they haven’t fallen into the trap of being too clever by half.
Saturday, March 24, 2018
The pessimist's paradox
If you engage in political discussion these days, you’ve almost certainly encountered a particular brand of pessimism.
I’m not talking about a general tenor of, “Everything is bad.”
Nor the pessimism in the Russian joke where you ask, “How are things?” and the pessimist answers, “Worse than yesterday,” while the optimist answers, “Better than tomorrow!”
And it’s not the pessimism of looking at climate change and saying, “We’re screwed. There’s too much CO2 in the atmosphere already, feedback loops have been triggered, and our societies don’t seem to be all that interested in doing anything serious about it anyway.”
(I’m temperamentally unable to live in that particular pessimism, but I can’t prove that it’s wrong.)
The one I’m talking about is, “It’s over. The oligarchs have won. What Cambridge Analytica showed is that with enough money, you can buy not just people’s votes, but their minds. Now that the transnational elites have that power, democratic elections can’t fix the problem.”
I appreciate the sentiment, and it sometimes crosses my mind.
But it also contains a paradox.
I’m not talking about a general tenor of, “Everything is bad.”
Nor the pessimism in the Russian joke where you ask, “How are things?” and the pessimist answers, “Worse than yesterday,” while the optimist answers, “Better than tomorrow!”
And it’s not the pessimism of looking at climate change and saying, “We’re screwed. There’s too much CO2 in the atmosphere already, feedback loops have been triggered, and our societies don’t seem to be all that interested in doing anything serious about it anyway.”
(I’m temperamentally unable to live in that particular pessimism, but I can’t prove that it’s wrong.)
The one I’m talking about is, “It’s over. The oligarchs have won. What Cambridge Analytica showed is that with enough money, you can buy not just people’s votes, but their minds. Now that the transnational elites have that power, democratic elections can’t fix the problem.”
I appreciate the sentiment, and it sometimes crosses my mind.
But it also contains a paradox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)