Posts published in April 2006

What seems undisputed in the contentious world of oil and gas is that we're running out. The exact moment of peak and decline seems yet to be the subject of some dispute, but evidently by the time we hit two decades or so hence, the United States, and the world, we will have a whole lot less oil to burn.

This leads to an obvious conclusion: Unless we want to de-evolve our society (as most of us do not), we should be getting about the business of developing new technology, so that our cars can run and houses be heated from sources other than petroleum. This is neither a stretch nor unrealistic, and any number of specialists have said that the economic pressure for it happen will occur once gas reaches a certain price point; $5 a gallon is often banied about. That, of course, suggests we have no free will or insight or initaitive to act before then, and simply develop the tech because we can see what's coming in the future of oil.

That, we'd suggest, is the logical backdrop to the rising political dispute over our spiking gas prices, those being the immediate sympton of a bigger problem. Watch for the rare politician who looks further ahead than this month's crisis: You may need to go on an expedition to find one.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate the short-range stuff; it instead puts it in its place. While to one extent or another, the rise in gas prices over the last generation was going to happen and is going to continue, the immediate details are not necessarily irrelevant.

Oil and gas spiked unexpectedly and interestingly in an Oregon Republican gubernatorial debate, and that may be worth revisiting. But nowhere in the Northwest has oil and gas become so central to politics as in the still-emerging Senate race in Washington. (more…)

Some indications that Tim Eyman, Washington's king of the initiative, may be falling short in his effort to put a measure on the ballot to reverse this year's legislative passage of a gay rights bill.

If so, that would be a remarkable failure - up there with the voter rejection of the transportation package initiative last year. But if the numbers released so far are accurate, the proposal seems headed for the reject pile rather than the ballot. A rundown of the stats can be found at the Horse's Ass blog.

Eyman, it should be noted as well, seems more focused on his I-917 measure on the state car tabs rate.

Qualifies as a political stunner, the announcement Friday by Washington state Senator Bill Finkbeiner that he will not run for re-election this year.

The implications are large, but of a piece with developments already underway.

The surprise comes in part from the way Finkbeiner, a Republican who has voted conservative enough to become his party's floor leader, seemed this year to tailor his legislative record to his district, on gay rights and other matters. His district, he seemed to suggest, was moving, was less and less conservative, and he had to respond. Usually you don't do that if you're planning to retire anyway.

Republican Representative Toby Nixon, plans to run for Finkbeiner's seat, and Finkbeiner quickly endorsed him.

But the announcement was treated as a big deal - former state Republican Chair Chris Vance called it "That's terrible, terrible news for the Republicans" - and there's something to that view. You get a hint of it in Finkbeiner's quote: "It's always better to go out at the top of your game, and that's where I am now." (more…)

There's a remarkable subtext to the Thursday decision by Seattle Judge Greg Canova in the case of the warring Seattle dailies: That not only the owners of those newspapers have a legitimate stake in the outcome.

This is not the norm in business litigation, when one business sues another and a court has to decide. The usual theory is that, unless a public (governmental) organization is involved in the case, the matter is fundamentally simply between the two parties. The workings of the court and the documents submitted to it ordinarily are public, but that's mainly because a public entity - the court - is involved as decision-maker. If amazon.com were to sue Microsoft, where would be the public's seat at the table? Probably nowhere.

But would that be right? Millions of people have a major stake in both corporations' activities. Maybe the public, or some version of it, should be at the table too.

Judge Canova might or might not streatch the point that far. But something similar seemed to underlie his decision.

The situation is that Seattle's two daily newspapers, the Times and the Post-Intelligencer, are locked in a joint operating agreement; the owners of the Times want to end the agreement, while the owners of the P-I say that if it is ended, their newspaper might die. The battle, stretching over years already, has been intense. A month ago they announced they had agreed to submit the case to an arbitrator who would make a decision in a year or so, and that they would abide by it. (The proceedings leading up to the decision would be closed, though the decision itself and its rationale would be released.) They asked Canova to put the legal case on ice until the arbitrator acts.

Canova refused. He pointed out that the litigation also had a third party, the Committee for a Two-Newspaper Town (a group of newspaper employees), and that it had an interest in the case too. It too had a right to litigate, he suggested. His reasoning suggested that interests beyond those of the business owners are at stake.

An opinion to review, and consider.

Noteworthy followup story in the Seattle Times on intelligent design, and more specifically on Seattle's Discovery Institute, which has been its leading national proponent.

The article's basic point is that the campaign for ID was dealt a serious blow in last year's federal court decision in Dover, Pennsylvania, holding that the teaching was essentially religion, not science - as the Institute has proclaimed.

Most striking quote in the story, from no less than Rush Limbaugh: "The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals." Which, as he seems to suggest, didn't work.

Regionally, what does that suggest for the Discovery Institute itself? Spokesmen note that the Institute didn't suggest the Dover officials teach intelligent design, only "the controversy" surrounding it - but that seems a thin distinction.

This might suggest the large institute, which has a wide range of research territory far afield from creation, might reorient itself. And yet that might be difficult too. The Times again: "Discovery Institute funders, including the Maclellan Foundation in Chattanooga, Tenn., have open religious agendas. Another donor, the Stewardship Foundation of Tacoma, says it 'provides resources to Christ-centered organizations whose mission is to share their faith in Jesus Christ.' Its founder, the late David Weyerhaeuser, was also interested in science, Meyer said."

Its researchers seem to know what they want to find.