<Oops! or a thought for a WednesdayThe Oil DrumWed Open Thread (and the XOM boycott)>
<Columbia Symposium on China's Energy NeedsThe Oil Drum: LocalBRT Moving Slower than Molasses>

137 comments on What is Chuck Schumer's problem?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

GreyZone on April 19, 2006 - 12:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You cannot tell Schumer anything. I was present during expert testimony on the hill in the mid-1980s when he was still in the House of Representatives and he made a complete ass of himself there showing no technical understanding of what was wrong with his proposed "cop killer bullet" and silencer ban even after people explained that he'd be outlawing nail guns, DNA insertion guns (one technique for DNA insert is attaching it to tiny tungsten pellets and shooting it into a cell), and a host of other common tools since the language of the bill was written so shoddily. He finally shut the hearing down in a fit of rage when one witness showed him a 1 liter Coke bottle with the bottom blown out, when the expert witness testified that this was the ultimate one shot silencer and asked if he was prepared to ban Coke bottle manufacture.

Since that day I've had nothing but contempt for Chuckie Schumer, his grandstanding, or his deliberate ignorance. That he refuses to understand peak oil or address the issue directly does not surprise me at all.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that as long as CONgress is staffed with CONmen (namely lawyers), we will have no forward progress on technical issues like global warming, peak oil, conservation, etc. Note that it is the rare congressional member like Bartlett who has a technical background who comes to grips with such issues. This is also why I laugh at people who think that electing Democrats instead of Republicans will make a difference.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Damek on April 19, 2006 - 1:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I've been wondering lately what, if any, means there might be to encouraging people with technical backgrounds to run for congress?

I notice that India has some rather technical people in their highest offices.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on April 19, 2006 - 2:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think technical people too often lack the requisite political skills. We tend to be too honest and to the point. We find it hard to pander to people. For example, if I see a solution to a problem, and it is going to make me very unpopular to suggest it, I am still going to suggest it if it appears to be the best solution to the problem. Hence, I wouldn't get elected, because I didn't pander to the consituency.

Put me in Schumer's shoes. I am going to pound on the podium and say "The problem here with gas prices is because of us, and the way we built our society". I am going to come off sounding more like Kunstler, and that is not going to be a popular stance. The person who gets up and says that the oil companies are the problem, and they have a plan for punishing them and happily transitioning us all to alternative energy is the person who is going to be elected.

RR

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on April 19, 2006 - 4:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Agreed, Robert, and this is Jay Hanson's assertion as to why democracy is fundamentally incapable of grappling with peak oil. I don't necessarily agree with all of Hanson's conclusions, but I do on the topic of democracy. People don't vote for whomever tells them the truth. People vote for whomever makes them feel good in whatever personal value space they currently hold.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oldhippie on April 19, 2006 - 9:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As a practical matter, vote for the amiable drunk. Do not vote for the dry drunk, the drunk in denial, or the angry drunk. (Bush). Amiable drunks make the best politicians.

Mosca and Pareto shot the notion of representative democracy to hell definitively over 100 years ago. And they missed a few points.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Apuleius on April 19, 2006 - 10:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Schumer has another option: he could Shut The F*ck Up. The only prominent person brave enough to talk like Jim Kunstler is, alas, Jim Kunstler. That is true. But Schumer could at least keep quiet instead of making himsef such a big part of the problem.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
beechdriver on April 19, 2006 - 8:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
i would rather be home with my gold and silver when the populace marches on DC with pitchfolks. Ayn Rand and John Galt - where are you?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
peakhasarrived on April 20, 2006 - 6:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
India's president is a top scientist so yes he is technical and aware of the preoblems regarding energy sufficency. That was the focus of his speech last independence day - Aug 15th 2005.
However, the Prime Minister who is the head of the executive branch of tehe government doesnt seem to have a clue about it. He was recently talking about laying gas pipelines in the major cities of India (right now distribution of LPG/Cooking Gas is done by oil companies using cylinders). So hence I feel he has no clue. The finance minister who has a very big role to play in policy making is a Harvard trained attorney and going by the statements that he makes regarding growth, credit etc  he also has no clue. Folks feel he thinks of himself as a very "smart economist".
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.