Harvard's Election 2008 Blog

I should preface this experience by noting how much irrational loathing I have for that antiquated communication device that is the telephone. It is loud, obnoxious, makes your ears sweat, and requires undivided attention for use. It has been obsolete ever since Al Gore invented the internet, and my blood usually boils whenever I am forced to use it. I have broken my fair share of cell phones due to various circumstances, but all have been via the smashing of the phone against a wall. Text messages are not exempt from this hatred- they cost 10¢ each and take way to long to write. Not to mention that they cost 10¢, and I am stingy.

So imagine how disgruntled I was when I found out that America's next president was a fan of this shameful form of communication- so much so that he was announcing his Veep via text message? Well, actually, I was a bit amused at the time. And I am compelled to tell my story, especially after a bit of conjecture by the Harvard Dems (yes, I belong to their email list) regarding the matter, where one loyal member defined the question of our generation as "Where were you when the text was sent?"

Before I start, let me state for the record that our generation classifies texts in the following categories: any text received during the day is simply a txt; any received between the hours of 11:30 PM and 2 AM is a "drunken txt", and anything after that but before dawn is a "booty txt". There is no need to explain why.

So, back to the matter at hand: where was I when Barack Obama booty txted all of America? Well, given that the text was sent at 3:30 AM, I was soundly asleep, enjoying a very pleasant dream where I was lying on a beach in Greece, listening to Elena Paparizou and feeling the sun burn my back as I sipped a strawberry daiquiri. Now, friends, going from life in mega-urban New Jersey to the wonderful shores of Ellas is truly change I can believe in, but the only change that came to me was the change from the peaceful purring of Mediterranean breeze to the obnoxious vibrating beep of my cell phone. The wretched communication instrument refused to slience until it had my undivided attention. I opened it reluctantly to see I had a message from "62262"- the numerical equivalent of the letters "Obama"- and there it was: "Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee."

Really??

At first I thought this was a prank. Surely the real Barack Obama wouldn't wake up all his supporters (yes, all his supporters are in the Eastern time zone) at 3 AM to tell them something that MSNBC had been saying for weeks. Plus, isn't Joe Biden racist or something? I didn't know- he was always too boring to investigate. Either way, someone was getting a nasty email tomorrow when I woke up and got a real Obama text saying Evan Bayh was the real pick.

But then I went back to sleep and woke up to the same exact news as last night. I even got this wonderful begging email!

I don't even have a driver's license- what do I want a car magnet for?

That was my full testimonial of the epic Barack Obama text-message stunt. And, in terms of serious political analysis, I give it a mixed review. The fact that news agencies were announcing the truth hours before the text was sent out would lose Obama swing votes that were awake at the time and feel deceived. Those that were asleep, like myself, were angered that Obama had the nerve to wake them from their sleep to tell them something that Biden himself had said was untrue all of last week. He started off his full-ticket campaign on a lie. And that, after the Iraq War debacle, doesn't really sound like change at all. Neither does putting a 35-year career senator on your ticket.

Comment (0) Read More...

Well, it looks like Barack Obama has finally cracked under the pressure:

 "My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.  

 

 This is disappointing, to say the least, and makes me wonder what sort of policies Obama intends to implement in order to lower gas prices without compromising his energy policy.  If Al Gore and other experts are to be believed, we need to act fast to ween ourselves off of carbon energy dependence, not encourage it by making it cheaper.  See Al Gore's landmark speech to We Can Solve It:

{youtube}dt9wZloG97U{\youtube} 

This is especially problematic when you consider all of the reasons to raise the tax on gas on Pigouvian grounds, due to the externalities involved in burning gas.  Check out this article detailing some of these externalities, which comes to the conclusion that:

Combining all these numbers, along with the other reasons why we should tax gas (e.g. wear and tear on roads), it seems easy to justify raising the tax on gas by at least $1 per gallon. In 2002 (the year I could easily find data for), the average tax was 42 cents per gallon, or maybe only one-third of what it should be. 

 

Without a magic hat filled with new supply, or without lowering taxes, I don't know what Obama could do to lower gas prices, with the exception of stabilizing the trading situation (say, by bringing more stability to the Middle East and thus lowering oil risks and oil futures).   "Change" and "hope" will involve spending the time, money, energy, and investment in capital replacement, research, and lifestyle changes, not illusory hopes for cheaper oil in 30 years.

Comment (0) Read More...

In apparent desperation, McCain has turned to some pretty disingenuous attack ads against Obama.  The first one to startle me, a former McCain fan, was this one, entitled "Pump:"

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

FactCheck.org, the non-partisan group charged with assessing political ad claims, calls the ad "ridiculous" and "a full tank of nonsense."  They go on:

"What's not true, however, is that current opposition to lifting the moratorium has anything to do with today's gas prices. They aren't high because any one individual is against ending the ban. As we have pointed out previously, the Energy Information Administration estimates that if the go-ahead were given right now for such drilling, it would be 2030 before there would be enough oil flowing to have a "significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices." Is there "no end in sight" because of opposition to ending the moratorium? No more so than because of opposition to hastening the development of alternative sources of energy and new kinds of cars. But most experts believe that if we haven't implemented other strategies well before 2030, we're in deep trouble. "

 Well, that's no good.  This isn't miraculous thinking.  Set aside the fact that there are plenty of places to drill in the US that aren't protected.  Next, consider the fact that to finance and build the infrastructure to drill for, refine, and distribute this rare substance would take a long time to build, and may even require some companies to hike their gas prices in order to pay for it.

Don't get me wrong--I understand this political move, and why his staff has decided to use it.  McCain's the underdog.  He needs to act fast to seem competant, solution-oriented, and in control, and to paint Obama is ineffective. But for undecided voters, this low-blow suggests that McCain is struggling to find a weak point in his opponent, assumes that people don't  understand Congress (can one senator really destroy the "family budget?"), and displays an ignorance of energy policy that suggests that we could  immediately get back to the "good old days" of cheap oil if we just drilled more.

For me, it makes me seriously question McCain's alleged commitment to renewable technologies.  McCain is clearly in bed with some new people now, including the people that brought Bush to power.  If he's changing the way he conducts his campaign, who says he won't change his content?

Comment (0) Read More...