Grist.org has the details of a $100 billion economic recovery package being debated in Congress. As with anything Congress does, it seems there’s plenty to like about the package and an equal amount of things not to like so much.

Thumbs up on these initiatives, as described in the Grist story:

The package would allocate $500 million for weatherization programs to reduce energy usage. It also would approve a $300 million investment in advanced battery research, $1 billion for the advanced battery manufacturing loan guarantees, $500 million for local governments to improve energy efficiency, another $500 million for additional energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D; and $140 million for electricity transmission improvements. Another $2.5 billion is set aside for mass transit funding, with $400 million marked for Amtrak in particular.

This part, I’m not so sure of:

There’s an excitement about the approaching Obama Presidency that has nothing to do with his race. Obama understands the importance of caring for our environment and the real and growing danger of climate change. He gets it, where so many in the past have obfuscated, attacked the science, or simply talked about the importance of reversing climate change while doing absolutely nothing about it. Although he did mention “clean coal” technology, I was particularly stoked that it was last among the solutions he listed and that he used the phrase “develop clean coal technologies.” During the campaign, I was afraid that Obama believed clean coal technology actually existed. I should have known better.

Clean coal does not exist. It’s dirty to mine, dirty when it burns and dirty when converted to liquid fuel. The sooner we can get away from all fossil fuels for electricity the better. And if we take the lead and improve the technology for solar and wind energy, we might just get China and India to stop burning coal as well.

Well, that was fast. Just two days ago, John McCain “suspended his campaign” to work on the bailout proposal. He even threatened to skip the first presidential debate if an agreement was not reached in time. Now that the first debate is over, McCain – our most-absent Senator – has decided to resume not working in the Senate.

CNN is reporting McCain will not go back to Capitol Hill today, as some of his colleagues work to finalize an agreement. Maybe debating Obama to a draw took too much out of him, or maybe he realized it was easier to manage this thing if somebody just summed it up for him in terms he could understand. He was described as “fairly quiet” during his all-important meetings late last week.

Perhaps he decided to pass because his understanding of the economy isn’t stellar, or perhaps because the de-regulation he fought for so hard for 26 years caused this mess. Maybe Congressional leaders who are actually working this thing out told him he didn’t need to be in D.C. to not talk about the plan. He’s perfectly capable of not talking about the bailout from anywhere.

As our esteemed members of Congress debate the proposed $700 billion bailout to keep our economy from going into a tailspin, there are few certainties about the current economic climate.

The solution to our economic and environmental problems?

Here are a few of them:

1. The economy has too much money leveraged against itself. Read Jim Manzi’s post in The American Scene for the best non-partison, layman’s-terms explanation I’ve found for why we’re in such a mess.
2. The federal government has to do something to avoid a financial meltdown.
3. It’s going to be really, really expensive.

As scary as these things sound, there are steps the government can take in addition to any bailout that will address the root of the problem, and not just prevent our largest financial institutions from collapsing. It’s time for a new, green deal.

Happily for me, and anyone else who cares about the future of our planet as much as their 401k, government money spent on improving infrastructure will put money back in the pockets of working Americans. The first domino fell in this crisis when an increasing number of people could not afford to pay their mortgages. Foreclosures went up, housing values tanked and the backbone of too much of our economy (home equity) began to evaporate. Part of this is because banks were irresponsible in granting loans, true. But part of this is also because people have to spend $4 per gallon of gas to get to work. It is because electricity, natural gas and heating oil prices are all rising faster than the paychecks of most Americans.

Help me. Please. I know I’m young, but it seems to me Presidential elections are supposed to be a little less… insane. As much as I love the Daily Show, I remember a time when writers used to have to embellish things here or there to get laughs. Not anymore. Now it’s plenty to just read the news coupled with YouTube clips, clever graphics and Jon Stewart’s trademark voice of consternation.

There is no truth.

Let’s look at this election. You’ve got John McCain, who started out as an experienced war hero, a veteran of Washington, but with a reputation as a maverick who speaks his mind. On his side he had experience out the wazoo, distinguished military service, and he could make some credible argument that he would be less bad than George W. Bush.

He promised to run a clean and “honorable” campaign (as opposed to the Rove-style attacks that got George W into office twice). He even rode around in a campaign bus called the “Straight Talk Express,” and people did not yet deem it ironic.

Back then, Barack Obama was too inexperienced to run for President. Then, when that strategy wasn’t having the impact in polls, suddenly Obama was too famous to be president. Seriously? Isn’t that, umm, part of the gig? Quick, name one non-famous president. The guy knows how to draw a crowd and that puts him on a level with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears? Yeah, I’m sure 80,000 people would roll into Mile-High Stadium to hear Paris’ thoughts on the election and why banking regulations are, like, so totally hot.

That’s one of my favorite signs from today’s Alaska women reject Palin rally in Anchorage. Other notables include:
“McCain/Palin = unstable/unable” or “McCain/Palin, Incontinence/Incompetence”

“Drill, baby, drill is not an energy policy”

“We can’t bear Palin”

“Real leaders don’t have to cram for the interviews”

“Blink before going to war”

“Bush in a skirt”

Most of all, though, it’s the pitbull sign that got me. Probably because “diplomat” isn’t a word you hear tossed around very much in this campaign, from either side.

Charles Gibson is the first to actually interview Sarah Palin since she was announced as John McCain’s running mate, and it’s clear she’s much better giving scripted speeches. In fact, she keeps trying to give a scripted speech no matter what question Gibson (or Charlie, as she condescendingly refers to him) asks:

No wonder the McCain campaign is trying so hard to keep her away from the media. She may be the home-grown folk hero you’ve all been looking for, but it’s pretty clear she has no business being anywhere in our national chain of command. I respect her immensely for her pro-life stance, and truly believe she did the right thing carrying a Down Syndrome child, when many are aborted. She is undoubtedly tough, resolute and lives out her convictions. She should rightly be seen as an inspiration to working mothers and proof that a woman does not have to sacrifice having a family to have a career. She should not be vice-president.

If McCain hadn’t been so impulsive in choosing her, perhaps she could have learned more about foreign affairs or the national economy before she was thrust into the VP spotlight. She’s dangerously unqualified to do anything but spout catch phrases and run the state of Alaska, but that’s not even the issue here.

The issue is that John McCain chose a cheap bump in the polls over what’s best for America (choosing a running mate who would be ready to lead should anything happen to him). He is doing a dis-service to his country and even to Palin herself by choosing her as the VP candidate in this election. She’s clearly not ready, and I’m tired of government that doesn’t blink, doesn’t think, doesn’t admit that they might be wrong.

I saw a film today, oh boy…

After a particularly busy week at work, I decided to kick back and relax by watching Across the Universe (and yes, there is a point to this post besides my ridiculously mundane Friday night). I still hadn’t seen the movie, and being a huge Beatles fan, I was anxious to give it a shot.

The movie was pretty good, but most of all got me thinking about the stark differences between the society of the late 1960s and the one we live in now.

Characters in the movie protested the Vietnam War, mourned the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and generally believed they could change the big, bad world that surrounded them.

Nowadays, the story is something else entirely. If you want to do something about Darfur, you simply join a Facebook group. If you think the war in Iraq is a sham, you start a political blog that nobody reads and vent your thoughts into the wasteland of cyberspace. Obviously, your humble author is not exempt from the times.

Great Scott!

FADE IN:

EXT. THE STEPS OF THE U.S. CAPITOL BUILDING

REP. ROY BLUNT addresses a crowd full of eager REPORTERS who would rather regurgitate what BLUNT is doing than do any actual research or break a story.

REP. ROY BLUNT

We must vote on offshore drilling, we must vote now, we must vote yes and we must vote yesterday. Anyone who does not do these things hates America and laughs all the way back to his terrorist camp as real, average Americans sweat at the pump.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER

I agree with everything this man says, but I’m waiting for someone to be indicted in a sex scandal, as that seems to be the only time I can advance my political career.

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI

Seriously, offshore drilling? That’s what this is about? Your own people say that offshore drilling won’t have any impact for 10-15 years at the earliest, and that it probably won’t do much then. You can’t wait five weeks for a regular session?

ROY BLUNT

No, we can’t, because people are in favor of drilling now. Five weeks from now, people might figure out that the oil companies are the only ones who stand to benefit from the swill we’re proposing.

I was standing in line at the grocery store yesterday, and the conversation turned strangely to our nation’s energy policy. I can’t recall exactly how we got on that topic, but there I was standing between the drinks cooler and the candy rack hashing out the pros and cons of drilling for oil in ANWR and off America’s coastline.

The gentleman ahead of me in line seemed to believe, as do a disturbing number of Americans, that there’s a magic oil pill lying in wait just below our shores or just inside that herd of caribou in the wildlife refuge that will make all our energy problems go away. After all, it sounds good, doesn’t it? Gas is expensive, we have more oil. Problem, solution.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, at least not to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Their June 2008 report, titled “The Truth About America’s Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits states pretty clearly:

Since the 1990s, the federal government has consistently encouraged the development of its oil and gas resources and the amount of drilling on federal lands has steadily increased during this time. The number of drilling permits has exploded in recent years, going from 3,802 five years ago to 7,561 in 2007.

Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361%, yet gasoline prices have also risen dramatically (Figure 1) contradicting the argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices. There is simply no correlation between the two.

Gee, in George W. Bush’s administration alone, oil companies started getting 361 percent more permits and that number has almost doubled since we re-elected him in 2004? I’m shocked. Well, at least that solved our oil crisis, right? Didn’t it?