We have some cliches along these lines: too many cooks spoil the soup. A friend of mine works at a library in New Hampshire (not the town I used to live in) which recently completed construction on a new building. The architect(s) they worked with usually work with government agencies, but after this experience, said at least privately that they weren't looking to do any more work on public libraries and I can't blame them. Everyone has an opinion about what libraries are for, and there are a lot of everyones, especially compared to the amount of money involved.
I noted yesterday that I suspected the offshore drilling announcement to run parallel to the giveaway to big pharma very early on in the health insurance reform debate. Before things really got rolling, there was always some chance that we might reform, say, the drug industry, or how doctors are compensated, or who makes decisions about how treatment proceeds or whatever. In the end, it all came down to access and affordability and it wasn't about health care, it was about health insurance, with a few other odds and ends thrown in that one _hopes_ will have a longer term effect but are kind of a long shot. The drug companies did not get regulated, notably -- and they mostly stayed out of the messy politics along the way.
Getting Shell and the other oil companies out of the energy debate seems like a way to simplify things. I just recently realized, in reading this non-Nate post over at 538:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/drill-barry-drill.html
"A few weeks ago, I announced loan guarantees to break ground on America’s first new nuclear facility in three decades, a project that will create thousands of jobs." (That would be quoting Obama from the offshore drilling announcement and the larger context of dealing with energy/climate issues.)
that the nuclear industry probably quietly exited the room while health care was squeaking over the bar.
With oil companies and GE out of the room (oh, fine, and Exelon and a bunch of other people, too, I'm sure), who has the big target painted on their back a la health insurance companies? Transport and coal. And I think transport is mostly in the clear: GM is already on life support, most of the other automakers already have some sort of hybrid and/or EV plan and apparently the DOT has been forcing anyone who wants money for transportation to include provision for modes-other-than-private-cars for everything they fund, like sidewalks, bike and bus lanes, etc.
Which leaves coal.
Coal = health insurance. We all hate it. We all rely on it. There's no obvious way to get rid of it. Clean(er) coal = affordability and access. And progressives are going to come out the other side of this negotiation feeling really creeped out by how there was never any serious attempt to eliminate fossil fuels at all.
I have a lot of respect for this president. I do. But I can't help but think it's a little audacious to call this hope. But it is _not_ shifting right, as some commentators might have you believe. Our hopes and dreams were much more ambitious than this, but reality on the ground is way, way worse.
There's an analogy here that involves vaporware, but I'll be damned if I can come up with a pithy summation.
I noted yesterday that I suspected the offshore drilling announcement to run parallel to the giveaway to big pharma very early on in the health insurance reform debate. Before things really got rolling, there was always some chance that we might reform, say, the drug industry, or how doctors are compensated, or who makes decisions about how treatment proceeds or whatever. In the end, it all came down to access and affordability and it wasn't about health care, it was about health insurance, with a few other odds and ends thrown in that one _hopes_ will have a longer term effect but are kind of a long shot. The drug companies did not get regulated, notably -- and they mostly stayed out of the messy politics along the way.
Getting Shell and the other oil companies out of the energy debate seems like a way to simplify things. I just recently realized, in reading this non-Nate post over at 538:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/drill-barry-drill.html
"A few weeks ago, I announced loan guarantees to break ground on America’s first new nuclear facility in three decades, a project that will create thousands of jobs." (That would be quoting Obama from the offshore drilling announcement and the larger context of dealing with energy/climate issues.)
that the nuclear industry probably quietly exited the room while health care was squeaking over the bar.
With oil companies and GE out of the room (oh, fine, and Exelon and a bunch of other people, too, I'm sure), who has the big target painted on their back a la health insurance companies? Transport and coal. And I think transport is mostly in the clear: GM is already on life support, most of the other automakers already have some sort of hybrid and/or EV plan and apparently the DOT has been forcing anyone who wants money for transportation to include provision for modes-other-than-private-cars for everything they fund, like sidewalks, bike and bus lanes, etc.
Which leaves coal.
Coal = health insurance. We all hate it. We all rely on it. There's no obvious way to get rid of it. Clean(er) coal = affordability and access. And progressives are going to come out the other side of this negotiation feeling really creeped out by how there was never any serious attempt to eliminate fossil fuels at all.
I have a lot of respect for this president. I do. But I can't help but think it's a little audacious to call this hope. But it is _not_ shifting right, as some commentators might have you believe. Our hopes and dreams were much more ambitious than this, but reality on the ground is way, way worse.
There's an analogy here that involves vaporware, but I'll be damned if I can come up with a pithy summation.