January 2012

Have a listen here.

Energy Policy Analyst William Yeatman looks over the EPA’s recent decision to deny a mining permit in Logan County, West Virginia that would have created 250 jobs. William believes the EPA has overestimated the proposed mine’s environmental effects. Jobs, he contends, are being treated as less important than bugs. The decision has also set up a heated political conflict between West Virginia and Washington, D.C.

An innovative project that would have converted high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, increased highway capacity, reduced congestion, expanded transit, and improved revenue capture will not be benefiting residents of Washington, D.C.’s inner northern Virginia suburbs. Thanks to a completely absurd lawsuit (that, among other things, claimed the proposed lanes were racist) filed by Arlington County Board Chairman Chris Zimmerman, the Virginia Department of Transportation announced today that it was moving forward with the I-5 HOT lane public-private partnership outside the Beltway, but was taking six miles in Arlington and Alexandria off the table.

Zimmerman and his allies contend that variable-priced toll lanes would somehow constitute an environmental disaster, and that the civil rights of poor minorities would be violated as they have a lower ability to pay the toll. Those who carpool, however, would not have been charged a toll, and the agreement between the state and private consortium Flour-Transurban calls for extensive investment in bus rapid transit. Of course, on average, residents of Arlington County are whiter and wealthier than their counterparts residing in outer-ring suburbs. As for the environmental impact, the roadbed would not be substantially expanded, which is why it received a categorical exclusion from the NEPA review process.

Foolish opposition to tolling runs across the ideological spectrum among those with little understanding of how to actually improve transportation. This past summer, the right-wing Washington Times published an editorial on the subject and actually lamented the fact that generally wealthy, long-distance commuters from Spotsylvania County would be charged for premium high-speed freeway use. The humanity!

Image credit: M.V. Jantzen’s flickr photostream.

American Apparel has started dumping shares, so stock up on your leggings and Ts now.

Explanations are below, if you’ll try for a moment to ignore that arched seductress hawking thigh-highs perched atop your screen. Or the ad below, launched this week, that makes every website Not Safe For Work:

It’s just this kind of presumptive marketing that makes the company seem tawdry and cliched. American Apparel opened its doors in 2003 as an earnest appeal to progressives who believed themselves weary of sweatshop wares.

Those of us who embrace mass production shudder at the money-making alternatives left to women and children in developing nations when “sweatshops” close their doors.

Los Angeles-based, “100% sweatshop-free” atelier American Apparel has been flailing for awhile. Bankruptcy rumors circulated when the clothing company missed SEC and auditors’ deadlines. The company’s financials have been in sharp decline since early 2010:

Explanations for the company’s slide vary.

Many blame Canadian CEO Dov Charney, the hipster’s hipster. Here’s a photo of Charney:

Wouldn’t you like to be clothed by this man? I certainly wouldn’t want to be not clothed by him.

Charney famously fills the AA website and ads with half-naked young men and women in a text and position context that is…suggestive, at best. News stories ask whether the marketing is advertisement at all, or if it’s straight sexual harassment. Employees could ask the same question — isn’t this sexual harassment? — about Charney’s controversial employment practices. Charney rose to fame in part for his focus on brand consistency, hiring and firing employees based on full-length photos alone.

In response to an employee suit in 2005 for sexual harassment when Charney regularly walked around American Apparel offices in his underwear, Charney said at his deposition: “I frequently drop my pants to show people my new product.”

But enough about the controversial chocies a private company makes to garner attention in a competitive market. Mores and morals aside, and all of that. This all-American flagship has been losing upwards of $40 million per quarter for the past year.

American Apparel is marketed as the urban brand, angling for a new American mentality. Perhaps fittingly, the company has been taking hits as dramatic as the House’s turnover to the Republicans last election. This week billionaire major investor Ron Burkle dumped his AA shares, possibly in response to fast-fashion competitor H&M’s announcement that they will move into a major AA demographic, online ordering, by the end of this year. The dump puts Burkle’s interest below 5 percent, which means he no longer has to report his holdings at all.

You know things are bad when even the guy who owns a jet dubbed “Air F*** One” sells out.

What sank American Apparel wasn’t its racy ads or irresponsible employment practices. American Apparel misunderstood what American branding is all about.

Americans are not generous because it’s ironic or funny; we’re generous because we all understand the American Dream. Sure, the American Dream includes being elevated out of sweatshops. But putting in sweat and underpaid time is all part of this. Our nation’s capital runs on unpaid interns’ striving, dreaming, sweat, and time.

AA has been paying employees $20/hour plus vacation time and benefits. Clothing prices reflect that. If all of the economies of the world operated as isolated actors, perhaps those prices would fly.

Happily, we are living in international times and enjoy a global economy. Much of the world benefits enormously from Americans’ “greed” and urge to acquisition. Clothing commodities may trade hands numerous times during their long second life, but more importantly, the market for clothing produced en masse in developing nations is a job boon to their economies and a part of what fuels such an acquisitive market.

American Apparel has not declared bankruptcy, even after repeated quarterly failures to file number on time, and even after laying off $1,500 illegal workers (all paid well above minimum wage) under threat of a federal raid. Yet even as AA skirts the law in so many sex and harassment arenas, it’s clear that people simply won’t reward unclever ads and prices designed to force the square peg of fast garment making into the round hole of a living wage.

What is most certainly bankrupt is the idea that a company (much less a government!) can somehow negate the law of supply and demand.

In the recent court decision declaring Obamacare unconstitutional, the Judge wrote the following on page 75 of the opinion: “[T]he award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.” This statement was regarding whether to order an injunction stopping the federal government from implementing Obamacare. Using crystal clear language, the Judge argues that the government should not enforce a law that a judge declares unconstitutional. Mark Levin has argued this point earlier in the week.

Sadly, the Obama administration appears willing to ignore the court’s decision and continue to enforce the law. So, in light of the federal government’s decision, what is the point of have the Constitution or a legal system at all? The Congress and the President passed a law that was clearly unconstitutional. A judge declares it so and says that he doesn’t even need to grant an injunction because the government cannot implement unconstitutional law, and yet, we continue as if nothing happened.

Using words like tyranny often turn off people who consider themselves willing to disagree without being disagreeable. But, what else would one call this? We have a government currently enacting policy with no checks and balances, and no system with which people can predict their legal standing. How else does one define what has taken place this week?

A three panel judge in California concluded that adult websites that “give it away for free” are not engaging in predatory pricing. According to the ruling, websites such as Redtube – the free porn site defendant in the case — simply have a more efficient profit model and as such are not liable for the loss of revenue or customers experienced by sites that charge for adult content.

The suit, which was brought by Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles against multiple websites providing free pornography, asserted that Redtube and other sites charged less than the product is worth, in an attempt to eliminate competition with pay sites, in violation of California’s Unfair Practices Act.

Luckily, the judges on the panel did not agree with Cammarata’s assertion.

The undisputed evidence showed that Bright obtains most of the videos it shows on Redtube free of charge from advertisers who pay Bright to display their videos containing their ads. Fundamentally, there is no difference between Redtube and a radio station in the early 1900s that broadcasted records it obtained for free from a music store and, in return, told its listeners where the records could be purchased. (See www.oldradio.com/current/bc_spots.htm; last visited Dec. 7, 2010.) In both cases the broadcaster’s purpose is not to destroy competition or a competitor but to attract patrons to its broadcast site where they will, hopefully, respond to its advertisers’ messages.

Not only did the judges find the free porn business model was fair and competitive, but they also defended free online pornography by categorizing it as protected speech.

The publication of a video on the Internet, whether it depicts teenagers playing football or adult entertainment qualifies as ‘conduct in furtherance of… free speech,” the court ruled last week. “…All of Cammarata’s causes of action arise from Bright’s conduct of placing speech on the Internet where it can be viewed for free by the public. This is the ‘predatory pricing’ that Cammarata complains of.”

Tech:

News Corp. Launches Digital Daily:
“News Corp. on Wednesday unveiled The Daily, a tablet newspaper that Chairman Rupert Murdoch described as “the model” for making news gathering a viable business in the digital age.”
Ottawa to reverse CRTC Internet billing decision:
“A controversial CRTC decision that effectively imposed usage-based Internet billing on small service providers will be reversed, the Toronto Star has learned.”

Global Warming / Environment / Energy:

Obama issues global warming rules in January, gives GE an exemption in February:
“Last month, the Obama EPA began enforcing new rules regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from any new or expanded power plants.”

Insurance / Gambling:

Barnett to fight federal gambling regulations:
“The Federal Government is working on an overhaul of gambling regulations as part of its deal to secure the support of the independent M-P Andrew Wilkie.”

Health / Safety:

Mary Katharine Ham presents: How Four Loko became ethanol:

Video: The skin gun:
“Rarely do science vids go viral, but after 100,000 views in just a single day, this one’s on its way. And with good reason: It’s an astounding breakthrough, immediately relevant to soldiers and firefighters (and, no doubt, to plastic surgeons). Gizmodo first blogged about it back in 2008 and scoffed that we’d see it anytime soon given social conservative objections to using stem cells. Turns out that’s not a problem, though. As you’ll see, it’s the victim’s own cells that are used in the “paint,” not embryonic ones. Mind-blowing stuff.”

“Progress”: New York City bans smoking in public parks for some reason:
“What choice did they have? If you’re in the park and someone next to you lights up, your options are limited. You could, I suppose, step two feet away and solve the problem, but then that poor bastard with a cancer stick in his mouth will still keep puffing away, ruining his lungs.”

Economics:

S.E.C. Hurt by Disarray in Its Books:
“If a company’s financial reporting were so bad that its auditor had pointed out significant weaknesses in its accounting for seven years running, the Securities and Exchange Commission would most likely be all over it.”

Some 43 Million Use Food Stamps:
“Nearly a year and a half into the economic recovery, some 43.6 million Americans continued to rely on food stamps in November.”

World food prices reach new record:
“World food prices hit a new record high in January after rising for a seventh consecutive month, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said Thursday, warning the poor would be hit hardest.”

Legal:

Upton investigates Obamacare advertising campaign, stimulus funding:
“Top GOP health-care official Rep. Fred Upton is taking a close look at the Obama administration’s advertising blitz for Obamacare, giving the president two weeks to provide all documents related to the P.R. push that included spots by aging TV star Andy Griffith.”

Labor:

SEIU fights healthcare repeal after obtaining waivers from law:
“The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is lobbying hard against the amendment offered by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to repeal the healthcare reform law.”

Health care workers union claims victory over smaller rival:
“The ongoing clash between two unions battling to represent Northern California health care workers has taken another turn – with the larger, more established combatant claiming victory.”

Transportation/ Land Use:

City to Seize Land in Queens:
“Seeking to kick-start a massive Queens real-estate development project conceived in the boom years, the Bloomberg administration is moving to seize a portion of the site from private property owners.”

Hunter business chamber welcomes high speed rail study:
“Chamber President, Brett Derwin says high-speed rail would be a major boost to the region’s economy.”

Ethanol subsidies helped cause the Egyptian riots, contributing to the “skyrocketing food prices” that triggered “the massive unrest now occurring in Egypt,” argues economist and syndicated columnist Larry Kudlow, in “Bernanke and Ethanol Sink Egypt.” “In 2001, only 7 percent of U.S. corn went to ethanol. By 2010, the ethanol share was 39 percent. So instead of growing wheat, our farmers are growing corn in order to cash in on ethanol subsidies.” That harmed Egypt, a major wheat importer. Another factor was the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policy, whose effects have already been felt overseas: “In dollar terms, the price of wheat has soared 114 percent over the past year. Corn has surged 88 percent.” (The Fed is even printing money so that the government can buy its own bonds to facilitate record deficit spending.)

Commentators across the political spectrum worry about the effect of ethanol subsidies.  The environmentalist Jeremy Bloom has an article titled “Egypt’s Ethanol Revolution: Bad U.S.  Policy Driving Up Worldwide Food Price.” Rob Port asks, “Are Ethanol Subsidies the Root Cause of Egyptian Protests?

As I previously noted, the rise in food prices in Egypt seems to have strengthened the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, rather than the small pro-western reform movements in Egypt, by radicalizing the slums of Cairo, whose residents sometimes rely on relief provided by the Muslim Brotherhood (the only Egyptian political movement that provides non-governmental charitable services), and who have little connection to the Westernized middle class.

As the Wall Street Journal noted earlier this week, potential 2012 GOP presidential nominees are making the rounds in Iowa singing the praises of renewable fuels. Newt Gingrich was a particularly egregious example. The latest to jump ship is former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. He embraced the 9/11 national security meme, while giving us his historical take of what he deems the “radicalization” of Islam and the necessity of a smart, “independent” energy policy:

Santorum believes that domestic production of renewable liquid fuels in critical to this country’s national security. “Post 9/11, I went from someone who was skeptical at best of developing domestic sources of energy, to being a grand proponent of such things,” he said. “My pledge to you is to work with this industry to create a bigger and bigger place in the market for domestically produced ethanol and biodiesel.”

Santorum, a conservative Republican who served two terms in the U.S. House and two terms in the Senate, is considering a run for president in 2012 — as is former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who also spoke at the IRFA event this week.

As this blog notes, while in the Senate Rick Santorum voted against ethanol subsidies. So while Al Gore recently gave up ethanolism, we have a whole host of presidential hopefuls embracing the fuel. Consider this speech his first penance, with many more to come.

Meanwhile, the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee is putting ethanol under the microscope.

1. Soviet “Accident Prevention” posters.

2. Are brain electrodes a cure for depression?

3. People debate the correct pronunciation of “GIF.”

4. Ironic message of the day.

5. Italian women have an interesting way of protesting . . .