Michael Brown, You’re Irrelevant

I usually try to keep my blogs about the bigger picture and less about railing on individuals. But, this one such individual (if you can call him that) has been the subject of my ridicule, dating back to Hurricane Katrina. Michael Brown, horse trainer, former head of FEMA and the face of the Bush Administration’s failure in New Orleans after Katrina, is now imparting his infinite wisdom and unending intelligent discourse onto our open and loving ears.

The subject: The Gulf Coast BP Oil Spill.

His conclusion: The Administration allowed oil to spill into the gulf to appease environmentalists and undermine their own plan to continue offshore drilling. BRILLIANT! The government must have been behind it!

The last time I heard something like that was when I was walking down Bruin Walk at UCLA and saw a 9/11 conspiracy table. The fact that he thinks the administration would deliberately allow for the destruction of fragile ecological habitats in order to pander to environmentalists is unbelievably contradictory bordering on stupidity.

The fact that he has the audacity to assert that Obama has some sort of political agenda in regards to this tragedy shows that he is completely and utterly irrelevant, and no one cares what he thinks.

Here is my open letter to Mr. Brown:

Dear Michael Brown,

You’re irrelevant. Your hyperbolic, politically motivated, soap box bulls$%& doesn’t amount to diddly. You didn’t matter during the Bush administration, and you don’t matter now.

Sincerely,

The USA

Arizona SB1070: Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

The great state of Arizona has been in the news recently, and not because John McCain has found out he is of Mexican descent (we can all dream). Arizona’s SB1070, the new immigration law, has set off protests all around the country. Even Obama called the law “misguided.” Some Republicans have reacted with caution, ambiguity, avoidance and careful diction. In other words, it is an election year. Conservative Republicans have come out in full favor of the law, even considering similar legislation in their states. Finally, others have just gone independent. Well…just Charlie Crist.

I am going to read the 17-pg (yawn…) and give you, the avid reader, some semi-objective guidance. I will cover some of the more controversial sections along with some of the boring detail.

No hyperbole, just the facts…kinda:

“FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.”

The ambiguity comes from the words “reasonable suspicion.” What constitutes “reasonable suspicion?” Will it be treated like “probably cause?” More importantly, is it ambiguous enough that it can withstand an argument of violation of XIV rights?

“A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.”

What constitutes an “offense that makes the person removable from the United States?” If the person is a citizen, and is arrested on suspicion of being illegal or doing an “offense that makes the person removable from the United States,” but turns out to be a citizen doing a crime that is punishable by US law, would the conviction be overturned due to the lack of warrant? Is “probably cause” akin to “reasonable suspicion?”

“A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.”

If any section of this law comes into conflict with federal law, and impedes the full enforcement of such a law, it can be challenged in superior court. This also allows for citizens to sue the state if they believe the law is not being implemented in its fullest.

A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.

(b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.

(c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-105.

(d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.”

This is a no-brainer. This is the “we care about national security” section. Stop traffickers, stop terrorists, stop WMDs.

"’Smuggling of human beings’" means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.”

In a previous section, the law prohibits human trafficking, and designates different levels of misdemeanor for a couple of circumstances (age of individual, citizenship, if intimidation or abuse occurred, etc). This section defines human trafficking as to include the transportation of illegal aliens over the border. So, this makes US citizens involved in such activities (“Coyotes”) liable to prosecuted as human traffickers. This might be inherent, but I decided to include it anyways.

IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENTCONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

Take a look at section C, and compare it to the above paragraph. This section is a little broad and ambiguous for my taste. What is the individual being hired or picked up is a legal citizen? What will happen if one person is being picked up by their employer on the sidewalk and their car impedes the flow of traffic because of that? Do both of such things make them prosecutable under this new immigration law? Maybe the top part is unnecessary, and might not stand up to either an illegal search and seizure or violation of civil rights argument.

“AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.”

An employer can claim “entrapment” if being prosecuted for hiring illegal aliens. There are various definitions of entrapment, with the most prevalent being a coercive act by a law enforcement agent forcing the person to violate the law. But, it is not entrapment when the employer was “predisposed” to violate the law or when officers “merely provide the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation.” Is there a way to discern the line between coercion (thus entrapment) and “merely providing an opportunity?” And who will verify coercion or entrapment when considering “the conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents?”

CONCLUSION: While the law is ambiguous and cries out for a legal challenge, I find no explicit section giving power to AZ law enforcement to indiscriminately stop anyone they deem “illegal.” But, it does give open ended statements which can be interpreted to enforce the purpose of the law, but not ensure against abuse and vigilantism. For this law to stand up to legal challenges, it must clearly outline the guidelines for “reasonable suspicion” and ensure that the lawful activities and civil rights of U.S. citizens are not unconstitutionally scrutinized or violated.

Moderate Republicans: An Endangered Species

Since the surprise election of Scott Brown (R-MA) to replace the senate seat owned by the late liberal lion Ted Kennedy, Democrats have been shifting gears towards corralling Republicans instead of leaving them in the dust. Even though Obamacare passed the house and Senate under reconciliation, the political victory almost seems a tiny bit pyrrhic. My opinions about process and how the bill was written and passed aside, Democrats have hit a nearly immovable wall in the run up to the Midterm elections.

It’s no secret that process in Washington moves at a snail’s pace. Arguments about the definition of biomass for Agricultural states and appeals to use political time to change the nature of the college football BCS system are a just a few roadblocks to meaningful progress. But, in a time where a snail’s pace has turned into something akin to the velocity of plate tectonic movement, the ability to compromise and move to the middle has become an anomaly, even for lawmakers who had a history of such an act.

The prime example for such a description would be Arizona Senator and multi-presidential candidate John McCain. This is the same John McCain who supported rights for gays, was waffly on the Republican pro-life litmus test, cosponsored campaign finance reform with liberal Russ Feingold, supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (with Ted Kennedy cosponsoring) and helped draft one of the first (but failed) climate bills with, then Democrat (now Independent), Joe Lieberman.

Where is he now? Since losing the election in 2008, he has abandoned his centrist ideals, stuck his tail between his legs and scampered towards the right. He has abandoned support for any climate legislation, released a statement that practically supports an Arizona immigration law that would amount to ethnic profiling and has dropped his support of gay marriage. He was also the supporter of an actual strategy of opposing every Democrat supported bill, even on traditionally bipartisan issues like nuclear non-proliferation and defense spending. He recently called the Supreme Court decision that specifically shot down his campaign finance law (I will try to post on the Campaign Finance law decision in the near future) “disappointing.” That is surely a tepid answer to a direct assault on ones principles.

McCain is not alone, unfortunately. The once-cool Senator Lindsay Graham from South Carolina has recently dropped his support of a tripartisan (Democrat John Kerry, Independent Joe Lieberman and himself in cahoots) comprehensive climate bill. Once a senator who dismissed hecklers who said he was a RINO and repeatedly voiced his support for bipartisanship on issues like immigration reform, has also bowed to pressure from his own party. By announcing that he is discontinuing his negotiations with his two counterparts on a climate bill because of the White House’s ambition to pass immigration reform he is essentially destroying his bipartisan credentials (besides the fact that he threatened to abandon his support of immigration if healthcare passed).

But, there is some hope. One of the first things that Scott Brown voted on when he got into office was a small jobs bill supported by the White House. His affirmative vote on the bill to pass out of cloture included yes votes from Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Kit Bond (R-MO) and George Voinovich (R-OH). The bill passed on the Senate floor with support from the likes of Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and (GASP!) James Inhofe (R-OK). I also suspect that the new Supreme Court nomination will not be filibustered by Republicans (although anything could happen) and that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed by Russian president Dmitri Medvedev and President Obama will also pass with some Republican support.

Although there have been small incidents of bipartisanship, the overall environment in Washington has been one of extreme opinions and lot of yelling. From the tea parties to the unprecedented breaks in procedural décor (“It’s a baby killer” and “you lie”), it does not seem there will be much fruitful negotiation on any important issue in the next couple of months. I have a feeling that this warning will ring true, especially when our lawmakers choose to gain political points instead of political progress, and move farther towards the fringe and away from the middle.

As for financial market reform, which has a 66% support from the public, bipartisan support has broken down. But, hey…who wants to regulate a derivative market with a $600 trillion (yes, that is trillion) value? Maybe some people like bailouts with taxpayer money and investment companies who use “naked” derivatives (credit default swaps, etc) for low return and high risk. But, of course, those are the people who didn’t think bubbles could burst.

Coal Power in Los Angeles

I know I haven't updated my blog in over 3 months...so here it goes!

Since I started my position in LA as Program Assistant for the Beyond Coal Campaign at the Sierra Club, I have been graced with a slew of information that I was not aware of in relation to the city's power mix. In other words, I learned a whole bunch about how Los Angeles gets its power. In a less surprising note, I found out that many who live in Los Angeles are unaware of how they get their electricity. Here it goes...brace for impact....

Los Angeles gets 44% of its power from coal-fired power plants in Utah and Arizona.

Well...it may not be so dramatic. But, it has implications that affect the average ratepayer living in Los Angeles. Lets take a look on how many problems are caused by these coal fired plants, and how the cost will affect YOU, the ratepayer of Los Angeles, in the near future:

The Plants

Intermountain Power Plant - A 1,640MW coal fired power plant located near Delta, Utah, owned by Intermountain Power Agency and operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Amongst a slew of other small utilities, the LADWP owns 45% of the power from this plant.

Navajo Generating Station - A 2,409MW coal fired plant located on a Navajo reservation near Paige, Arizona that is owned and operated by the Salt River Project. The LADWP owns a 21% share in the power that Navajo produces.

The Cost

Intermountain Power Plant - Coal supply cost represents the highest expenditure for Intermountain Power. The plant buys its coal from the Sufco, Dugout Canyon and West Ridge mines in Utah and is transported via Union Pacific railcars. Starting in 2008, the price of coal began to fluctuate coinciding with an increase in price for all coal markets in the US. Cost fluctuation was caused by increasing demand and decreasing supply from the closing of several mines in Utah. New contract prices for Intermountain Power will be set higher than the historic average due to high commodity price in UT and increases in transportation costs. The new average price for coal is forecasted to be $65/ton. An increase from the historic average price ($36/ton) by just $10 would result in a yearly cost of $35 million. Because the utility has a "take-or-pay" contract with Intermountain Power, any reduction in use of coal power from the plant will result in the same cost. A take-or-pay contract sets a price at the beginning of the contract agreement, and the utility pays that price regardless of whether or not they decide to get the same amount power from the plant they agreed upon in the agreement. These costs will be shouldered by the utilities that have a share in Intermountain Power and their ratepayers.

Navajo Generating Station -

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ruled that the Navajo Generating Station must install the best available retrofit technology to reduce its emissions. The EPA has set pollution concentration benchmarks that Navajo must achieve in order to continue operation. The costs to reduce pollutants, according to the Salt River Project (owner and operator of Navajo) will be shouldered by utilities like LADWP, and their ratepayers. Coupled with a rise in the cost of coal per ton (due to increases in the cost of transporting coal to the station on railcars) Navajo Generating Station’s operations will translate to higher costs for utilities (and their ratepayers) who purchase power from the station.

Conclusion - Due to volatility in the price of coal caused by mine closures, contract renegotiations, pollution retrofits, increased cost of transportation and impending carbon controls and regulations from federal and state governments, the cost to operate these coal plants will go up. This means one thing:

The costs will be shouldered by the utilities and customers that get their power from these plants, including LADWP ratepayers!

Pollution

Together, Intermountain Power Plant and Navajo Generating Station produce 36 million tons of carbon dioxide, 75,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 1,973 pounds of mercury. Here are some "fun" facts about these pollutants:

Mercury (Hg) -

Once mercury is absorbed into the body as a vapor, the health affects can be both physical and psychological. Symptoms associated with high mercury exposure include tremors, emotional changes, insomnia, neuromuscular degeneration (twitches, weakness, atrophy), headaches, changes in nerve sensations and performance deficits. Higher exposure can produce kidney failure, respiratory failure and death.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) -

The health impacts of Nitrogen Oxides, according to the EPA, include airway inflammation in healthy individuals and increased respiratory problems in those suffering from asthma. There has also been a correlation between short-term exposure and increased hospital and emergency room visits. Nitrogen oxide emissions come from both stationary sources (coal fired boilers, etc.) and non-stationary sources (vehicles, etc). Nitrogen oxides react with ammonia, moisture and other components in the air to form small particles that can penetrate into the lungs. This can lead to complications associated with bronchitis and emphysema and can exacerbate symptoms of heart disease. This leads to increased visits to the emergency room and premature death. When nitrogen oxides react with sunlight, they form ozone, which can be dangerous to children, the elderly, those with respiratory illnesses and people who work outside. Some of the symptoms of ozone exposure include decreased lung function, respiratory illness and premature death.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) -

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by man made behemoths like coal-fired plants is the main driver for global climate change. Some of these affects include dramatic sea level rise, increased extremes of drought and flood, less snowpack, glacial melt, irregular snowpack melt, increased severity of wildlfires hurricanes

and

global warming. Drought, flood, sea level rise and increased severity of wildfires and hurricanes have a direct effect on the pocketbooks and livelihoods of Southern California residents. Drought and flood will affect the growing of produce in the Central Valley, hurricanes will affect oil rigs causing short term price spikes in the cost of gasoline and wildfires will be more frequent causing higher property damage and destroy sensitive forest ecosystems.

Pending & Existing Regulations

Mercury - By 2011, the EPA will introduce a new rule, regulating mercury emissions from power plants (obviously including coal fired plants). The two plants that LADWP gets its power from will have to spend millions of dollars installing maximum achievable control technology to meet these standards.

Greenhouse Gases (carbon dioxide included):

1. EPA Endangerment Finding - The Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA gave the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In 2009, the EPA declared that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health and therefore can be regulated by the agency.

2. Tailoring Rule - Sources of pollution that emit more than 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases must get a permit that says they are investing in the best available control technology. Installation of best available technology will result in high costs for the power plants, which will be shouldered by utilities and ratepayers. The businesses effected represent about 2% of total businesses in the country.

3. AB32 - A bill that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020. Like the aforementioned bills, this will put a price on carbon emissions for the electricity sector. High emitters, like coal fired plants, will have to pay more and will most likely translate those costs back onto consumers.

4. AB1368 - California based utilities cannot renew a long term contract with a electricity source or plant that does not have the efficiency and pollution of a combined cycle natural gas plant. This will prevent the LADWP (or any other CA utility w/coal power) from renegotiating contracts with coal plants.

CONCLUSION

Residents of Los Angeles can no longer divorce themselves from coal power and the consequences of coal mining. While we may live in a progressive city which is willing to invest in clean energy, we cannot ignore the fact that our power comes from mostly coal. This coal is mined in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, shipped to massive coal plants on Native American Lands and transmitted to homes in Los Angeles. The price to extract, burn and transport coal are out of state, and out of our control, but we end up facing higher electricity bills because of it. The only solution is to get Los Angeles OFF of coal and replace it with clean energy.

What's in Store for 2010

2010.

A decade has passed in the New Millennium, and as Paul Krugman pointed out, we are back to where we started. We learned nothing. As not to totally quote a Nine Inch Nails album...but we are back at Year Zero.

2009 is a goner. KO'd without as much as a complaint or obstruction. It left us in an eco-friendly, universally-covered, surge-inspired, financially-reformed, slow-to-recover backlog of problems, dropped into the lap of the new decade.

But, I don't want to be completely pessimistic about the end of the first year of one of the most anticipated administrations in United States history. But, as many Americans celebrated the election of the first black president, many political strategists began to lose sleep over the burden that they were about to take on. Here we have it:

Deficit

The Economy

War in Afghanistan

War in Iraq

Guantanamo Bay

Health Care

Climate Change

Housing Bubble

Credit Crisis

Unemployment

Stimulus

Torture

While some of these were campaign promises, many were legacies of the last couple months of the Bush administration. Of course one cannot harp forever about the problems of the Bush administration, as that would not produce any results.

Let's take a look at the current situation:

Deficit - Even higher (about 1/7 of GDP)

The Economy - Recession done, slow recovery commencing, emphasis on SLOW

War in Afghanistan - +30,000 more troops w/end date, still out of control

War in Iraq - first month without a single death, surge worked!

Guantanamo Bay - Not closed, prisoners successfully moved to Illinois, deadline for closure 01/20/10

Health Care - Bill passed Senate and House, going to Committee, then to Prez desk for passage

Climate Change - Energy bill passed house, waiting for Kerry-Graham-Lieberman rewrite in Senate, Copenhagen produced iffy results, IE Politically binding agreement

Housing Bubble - First time buyer credit extended, new rules still circulating

Credit Crisis - CARD Act in place, Banks bought out, TARP extended, TARP mostly paid back, banks continue to fail, Reg Reform pushed

Unemployment - 10.2% and rising

Stimulus - Passed, 2-yr plan for total implementation, job stimulus on the way

Torture - Memos released, on back burner?

This means?

Obama will face the same amount of work he did coming into the job. And, I will bet dollars-to-donuts that he will face harsher challenges, and more obstacles in getting his domestic and international legislation passed.

This also means that there will be a low-down-and-dirty, no-holds-bar, mudslingin' Wild West shootout/bar fight (can I give you anymore hyphenated anecdotes?) when the 2010 midterm elections arrive. If the Dems lose control of Congress, its going to be an uphill battle for the administration, fraught with compromise.

But, for 2010, compromise will be the name of the game.

FDR Speech to Congress

The Sacrifices of the Greatest Generation

Today, December 7th, 2009, is the 68th anniversary of the attack of Pearl Harbor that left thousands of Americans dead, and began World War II. I wouldn't be doing the WWII generation justice if I called WWII the defining point of 20th century US history. WWII had implications for the entire human race, and left and indelible mark on the psyche of those who fought and labored to see its end. Pearl Harbor, the second worst attack on US soil (Sept 11th being the worst) polarized an already sympathetic nation to unite to defeat totalitarianism, from the navy yards in San Francisco, to the beaches of Normandy, to the islands of the Pacific.

As someone who had widely read about WWII, I find that the 20th century is defined by two eras: Pre and Post-war. The brave soldiers who fought and died in the Pacific, N Africa, Europe and Russia were working towards protecting the world from the threats of Nazis and imperialists, but their actions had wider implications for the following 68 years. WWII spawned the atomic age, the cold war, the modern American family, affordable universities, cheap housing, suburbia, the FDR amendment, the Berlin Wall, cherry blossom festival, Rosie the riveter, modern healthcare, racially integrated armed forces, the defense industry and defined the "united homefront." All of these legacies spawned their own set of principles and ideals that still define what it means to be American. It brought us out of a depression, put us on the world stage and set that stage for the beginning of the most prolific generation: the baby boomers.

Most importantly, WWII gave us the greatest generation. They survived two world wars and a economic depression, to come out during one of the most prosperous times in our history. Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII, one as a bombadier and one as a dive bomber. My living grandfather, who flew divebombers against the Japanese in the pacific with Marine Corps, is 92 years old and flies the Marine flag from his home in North Hollywood every day. Its a simple gesture whose meaning transcends many generations.

If there is something we can take from remembering Pearl Harbor, its that decisions to go to war, to respond to an attack on our homeland, is something that will inevitably reverberate through many generations. And, the sacrifices of soldiers put in harms way should, and will always be held in the highest honor.