As a native Michigander, I have maintained for a long time that Michigan is a nice place to be from and not in. On 1/11/07 in East Lansing, Dr. Don Holocek made the following observation while contrasting the State’s economy with the national economy.

The State of the Michigan economy is a totally different story. It has yet to recover since the last recession in 2000-2001, wasn’t strong in 2006, and is expected to stay weak for at least the next couple of years.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:KlICbGaxxhYJ:www.tourismcenter.msu.edu/Publications/Economy-Tourism-EventsIndustry-Jan-2007.pdf+michigan+economy+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=52&gl=us&client=firefox-aHere’s

Here’s a WaPo article on home foreclosures in the state.

Here’s what a favorite columnist of mine said in early December:

You know Michigan’s economic situation has to be fairly grim when Comerica’s chief economist begins his monthly newsletter with these words: “Don’t give up hope.“

http://jackshow.blogs.com/jack/2006/12/essay_michigans.html

Finally I will conclude with the words of another M.S.U. economist. Here’s a blurb from the publicity of Charles Ballard’s book:

“Half a century ago, the world was knocking on Michigan’s door. But yesterday is gone, and it is not coming back,” Ballard says. “If the people of Michigan are to achieve a brighter economic future, we will need to develop new ways of thinking, and new ways of engaging with the rapidly changing global economy.”

http://spartanpodcast.com/?p=197

(here’s the actual podcast)

All in all, it seems to me that the situation in Michigan in general (and its urban areas, in particular) is quite grim.

Mexico and Saudi Arabia’s oil production appear to have gone into decline; world stockpiles of oil are declining. In the U.S., refinery closures have kept gasoline stockpiles tight and prices are soaring.

Peak oil is making it into the mainstream news–four experts in the field have recently spoken about it;

Matt Simmons.

Boone Pickens.

Paul Barclay, and

James Kunsler.

“The best new oil basin we will ever find is the one called ‘conservation.’” –Simmons

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

********************************************************

He noted that the analysis was based on preliminary data and that the highest-income Americans were more likely than others to file their returns late, so his data might understate the growth in inequality.

The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=5a2d017aeb4df8cf&ex=1175400000&pagewanted=print

Dan Froomkin writes in his White House Watch Column about the cynicism of a former New York Times editor who defends the behavior of elite (i.e., well paid) journalists while at the same time trying to have it both ways by claiming not to be cynical. Froomkin also links to Brad DeLong; check out both his entire entry and the accompanying comments.

Frankel on Libby and Journalism
Former New York Times executive editor Max Frankel weighed in this weekend with a major retrospective of the Scooter Libby trial and Washington journalism in the New York Times Magazine. He concludes “that the compelled testimony about reporters and their sources [will] end up doing more damage than even the reckless violation of a C.I.A. agent’s cover. For given the cult of secrecy that enveloped our government during the cold war and the hoarding of information that always attends the lust for power, a free, unregulated and unpunished flow of leaks remains essential to the sophisticated reporting of diplomatic and military affairs, a safeguard of our democracy. . . .

**************************************************************
But liberal blogger Brad DeLong takes exception to Frankel’s argument, pointing out that “most reporters to whom people like Scooter Libby leak do lazily regurgitate such leaks, and they certainly do not use them to pry out other secrets. If Scooter Libby had thought there was any chance that Judy Miller would have used his leak of the N.I.E. to expose it as deeply flawed, Scooter Libby would have kept his mouth shut. Only confidence that the reporter will be a complaisant tool of the source’s purposes induces the leak in the first place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/03/27/BL2007032701000_pf.html

Deregister the Democrats! 

The House Democratic leadership’s bill to end the war is a cruel hoax.

• It will keep the war going well into 2008.
• It omits Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s amendment which would have fully funded withdrawal by the end of 2007.
• It gives the President the right to waive requirements that troops sent to Iraq be properly trained, equipped and rested.
• There is no prohibition on using the money to attack Iraq.
• Troops can stay in Iraq beyond the deadline to “capture or kill” Al Qaeda or other terrorists, or to train Iraqi troops–effectively giving Bush a loophole big enough to do as he wishes.

Conscientious anti-war Democrats came under relentless pressure to abandon their principles.

Authors of the appropriation had to resort to illogical and false arguments: they did not have the votes to cut off funding (how many votes does it take not to pass a bill?)  The bill would outlaw the war after a certain  date (but has so many loopholes that it is totally ineffective.)  The bill would require that the troops be properly trained and equipped (unless Bush certified the need for them.)

Democrats selling a plan that it no better than the administration’s and they are being nearly as disingenuous in doing so.  We cannot survive having two war parties run our government.

Individuals have few tools with which to change Congress’ course.  The most powerful–the vote-is two years away.  We have called and written our legislators and occupied their offices and not yet been successful.  It is time to send the Democrats a message that we will not support a policy that continues this disastrous war. Change your registration, leave the party, and let your representatives know that if they don’t defund the war, you will not be back.

Here are links to state boards of elections with registration forms you can download.  Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming.

“The time has come when silence is betrayal.” -Martin Luther King

…and no, this isn’t it.
Click here to see the photographs in question.

It should come as no surprise to informed people that corn is a losing proposition when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases.  However, I was surprised to read about the effects of sugar cane.

Corn Can’t Solve Our Problem

Biofuels, if used properly, can help us balance our need for food, energy and a habitable and sustainable environment. To help this happen, though, we need a national biofuels policy that favors our best options. We must determine the carbon impacts of each method of making these fuels, then mandate fuel blending that achieves a prescribed greenhouse gas reduction. We have the knowledge and technology to start solving these problems.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301625.html?nav=most_emailed

…Alberto “Gonzo” Gonzales has actually made his predecessor, John “Pentacostal and Proud of It” Ashcroft look good. Ashcroft, who (under the influence of his religion) had statues covered up because they had exposed breasts, is now being held up as a responsible Attorney General. I’m not going to savage Ashcroft here — there are others who are far more qualified than myself who can do so — but will instead say that if Ashcroft is now winning praise for emphasizing to prospective United State’s Attorneys the importance of leaving politics at the door then that Gonzo’s behavior must be criminal in every meaning of the word (and if Gonzo didn’t break the letter of the law, then his behavior constitutes yet another example of just how truly depraved the current state of politics is).

I honestly never thought that I’d see the day when people would actually start rhapsodizing about the days when Ashcroft was Attorney General. I guess that goes to show just how naive I am. I knew that Gonzo was bad, but I should have realized — and didn’t — just how awful he is. He was appointed by Presdent Shrub; so I should have realized that he wouldn’t think twice about politicizing the Justice Department (maybe that’s why Ashcroft got the boot…). I guess that this article shouldn’t surprise me either.

Ex-Prosecutor Says He Faced Partisan Questions Before Firing

John McKay of Washington state, who had decided two years earlier not to bring voter fraud charges that could have undermined a Democratic victory in a closely fought gubernatorial race, said White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, “asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me.”

*********************************************************
He added that he took umbrage at the idea that he had other responsibilities beyond focusing “on the evidence and not allow[ing] politics into the work that we do in criminal prosecutions.” Those involved in the scandal over the firings who acted unprofessionally “or even illegally” must be held accountable for what they did, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401122.html

Here is a fascinating Gannett scoop on the backstage politics of climate change:

House Republican Leader John Boehner would have appointed Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to the bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming — but only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change, Gilchrest said.

“I said, ‘John, I can’t do that,’ Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. ‘He said, Come on. Do me a favor. I want to help you here.’ “

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), left, made his skepticism about global warming apparent to Al Gore, who testified before a Senate committee. At one point, Inhofe held up a photo of icicles in Buffalo and demanded: “Where is global warming when you really need it?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102060.html