http://www.drewhowe.net http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss en drewhowe@gmail.com Andrew Howe Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:23:42 -0400 Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:23:47 -0400 iBlog 1.4.6 Andrew Howe New and Unimproved - Andrew Howe's Weblog Well, it's the same blog. Really, the same. Just different colors, maybe. And no, I won't update this one much either. Andrew Howe drewhowe@gmail.com New and Unimproved - Andrew Howe's Weblog Politics http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20070413092338/index.html I'm lame. I haven't updated this thing in forever. Frankly, I've been insanely busy with a senior thesis. I think I'll be replacing this site with a more professional one sometime in the not-too-distant future... depending on what happens this next year.

There's a strong possibility I'll be doing inner city service (not mentioning the group so I don't get hits based on their name) for a year... missions, you might say (getting the name yet?). In which case I'll probably wipe the site clean and blog about that, when I have the chance... which might be never.

The sun just came out in earnest for the first time in several days. I'm turning 22, but seem to have not a second to pause and enjoy much- I've got a thesis, 10 page research paper, 2 books (with 5 page papers each) and finals to deal with before May 12. Oy.

Prayers are appreciated, almost demanded :-P. Seeing Jars of Clay tonight, which if it's at all like the show at Messiah last semester, will be absolutely amazing. It's pretty awesome that my favorite band from way back somehow managed to catch a social justice bug, and it's pretty wonderful to hear world class musicians who really care about the world.

So, if you're hoping to hear from me and haven't, you should email me. I'm entirely too busy to fiddle with this thing very often. Seeya around... ]]> Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:23:38 -0400 http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20070413092338/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C1146917966/E20060630183340/index.html A new bill is being introduced to the senate right now that attempts to address our fuel economy issues in the United States. Here's some info about it. Not surprisingly, the bill is not enough. Why? Three major reasons:

1. The Goal is not ambitious enough when you look at the long-term. Chances are, without any legislation, most consumer vehicles will surpass 35mpg by that time. Good fuel economy is starting to sell and our oil acquisition problems are not going to get easier in the conceivable future, so demand for higher fuel economy vehicles is going to increase. Consumers will be wanting vehicles that get way better than 35mpg by 2025. Reducing our oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day sounds like a big number, but it's not very significant in the end. 2.5 million barrels is about 12% of the 2005 daily oil consumption rate. If trends continue, 2.5mb/d will probably be an even smaller percent of 2025 oil consumption. Why wouldn't new fuel economy standards make a larger effect on overall consumption? The average age of cars in the U.S. is going up- meaning people are keeping their cars longer-- which means that any increase in fuel economy is going to effect a very small percentage of vehicles. The only way of increasing the effect of fuel standards on new vehicles is to force older cars out of service (which hurts the poor) or raise the standards (which hurts people who spend their money on new cars).

2. It's not a progressive plan. If we are going to change fuel economy standards for the future, we need to assume that over the next 100 years, the average miles-per-gallon consumption of a new vehicle will approach infinity. In other words, stop using oil, stupids (SUOS.. hmm... not quite the slogan I'm looking for). Not only is it likely that oil will cost considerably more in 2025 and after, but we might not have enough oil to supply our needs at any price. If we lower consumption faster and plan on continually using less oil (in other words, plan on adding 1.5-2mpg to the standard per year), we can push back the day when we run out. It might end up costing the consumer less if we make a progressing standard, too-- car companies are likely to moan and complain when we have to up fuel economy standards *again* in 2015 or sooner- if we plan to increase now, they can plan to deal with these standards changes in their long-term business plans.

3. This is the most important one. If the government changes their target number for fuel economy, who cares? The current passenger car standard is essentially ignored by the industry because there aren't significant fines or relevant consumer information to back up these standards. We need three different kinds of laws to make fuel economy standards actually count: taxes that charge car manufacturers (lots) for producing sub-standard vehicles (per-car produced), fines that come with a vehicle sticker price to make consumers actually notice they are buying a sub-standard vehicle, and annual taxes for people who buy sub-standard vehicles and increase our fuel demand in the process. I guess this makes me a tax-and-spend liberal. There is absolutely no excuse for the blatant disregard for standards in the current car market, and if we don't change anything, the industry will not get in line. Who cares about setting new standards when the current ones are already ignored? The current system doesn't properly assign cars to their "use type" which determines which cars are subjected to which standards . Cars like the H3 are exempt from current fuel economy standards and classified as "special use vehicles"-- yet there are no restrictions on who can purchase these vehicles. The industry doesn't care- they don't have to pay when they make an inefficient SUV, they make a profit if the make the car, so why get responsible?

Consumer vehicles need to be regulated heavily, and vehicles that are designated as "special use" need to be actually designed for something more important than hauling 72 ounces of soda from your local convenience store to the mall and back home again. And honestly, with the size of the H3 and similar vehicles, we really should be requiring a different class of driver's license to own and operate something so large and powerful. If my next door neighbor buys a gas guzzler, they should be well aware they are raising gas prices for everyone. The more we consume nationally, the more we pay per barrel-- it's basic supply and demand.

Why Should I Care?
In the end, consumer vehicles account for about 44% of annual oil consumption in the United States. That makes it the largest most accessible market in which we can lower national oil consumption- one set of federal laws can effect millions of cars and change the pace of our oil consumption single-handedly. Choosing to gently *suggest* we increase our efficiency *a little bit* is not taking full advantage of the huge chunk of consumption that consumer vehicles represent. Consumer vehicle consumption is the bulk of oil consumption in the United States- there is no other area in which we can decrease our barrels per day without hurting businesses considerably... and I know you wouldn't want that to happen.

In short, the bill makes it sound like our senators are doing something responsible, but in the end it's merely a tip of the hat to the industry. I mean, come on- if Joe Lieberman is behind it, the bill can't be too progressive, can it? ]]> Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:33:40 -0400 http://www.drewhowe.net/C1146917966/E20060630183340/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C1103020879/E20060625191401/index.html Hey all- just thought I'd pass along this iTunes link to the first released track off of Jars of Clay's new album, Good Monsters:
Dead Man (Carry Me)

The track is a part of a compilation album, but will be on the new CD. The new Jars of Clay sound presented here has a hint of Franz Ferdinand flavor (heavy rhythm guitar, catchy beat), mixed with Dan's honest voice and deeply layered guitar and keys. It seems to be a different sort of song for Jars, but the reflections and ideas are just as meaningful as ever. Post what you think! More updates to come.
]]> Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:14:01 -0400 http://www.drewhowe.net/C1103020879/E20060625191401/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20060605115254/index.html Finally, a real press release on Good Monsters is out, find it at jarchives.com.

The release quotes Dan extensively (perhaps because essential has no clue what's going on?):
“I was not sure how all of the experiences of the last few years would translate into music[....] There have been so many things to look at and describe. This record is part confessional, part euphoric love poem, part bitter divorce, and part benediction. It was born out of many experiences and conversations between addicts, failures, lovers, loners, believers, and beggars. And so the language of recovery and the honest discourse about our attempts to live apart from God and apart from each other is a theme. Engaging people who are doing the hard work of laying their lives open to others, and avoiding isolation, has allowed me to see that there is both immeasurable evil and unfathomable good mixing under my own skin and it is grace, mercy and freedom that allow me to not simply be a monster, but to be a good monster.”

The release also reports the album will be comprised of 11 new songs and a cover of All My Tears (Julie Miller). Guests include Kate York, Leigh Nash, and the African Children's Choir (wow).


In addition, FreshReleases.com recently posted an article containing a Jarchives message board post by Dan, regarding the lack of real nominations for Redemption Songs. Quite an impressive response, if you ask me.

More updates will come as they can. By late June, the single from Good Monsters, "Work" will be hitting radios, perhaps I'll find a way to get it. ]]> Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:52:54 -0400 http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20060605115254/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20060528022057/index.html Sun, 28 May 2006 02:20:57 -0400 http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20060528022057/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C1103020879/E20060510151810/index.html Wed, 10 May 2006 15:18:10 -0400 http://www.drewhowe.net/C1103020879/E20060510151810/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C565842183/E20060403205644/index.html Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:56:44 -0400 http://www.drewhowe.net/C565842183/E20060403205644/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C1103020879/E20060327222007/index.html I just put together a new website for SPEAK on Eastern University's campus. They/we are a cool organization focused on social justice causes on Eastern University's campus. Our current causes are bringing Fair Trade coffees and Sweatshop-Free tshirts to Eastern's campus, getting adequate pay for the employees that clean our campus, advocating the current Wind Energy plan, and educating when it comes to social justice issues. It's all for Christ, and there's a whole lot of new energy in the group this year. Everyone go check it out! The URL is:
http://groups.eastern.edu/~speak

All are welcome to post comments about the site, let me know if anything doesn't work right! Soon to come will be some great content focused on each of our areas of interest. Fight the power! ]]> Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:20:07 -0500 http://www.drewhowe.net/C1103020879/E20060327222007/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C1146917966/E20060225193942/index.html Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:39:42 -0500 http://www.drewhowe.net/C1146917966/E20060225193942/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C1103020879/E20060225135000/index.html The Feb. 21 Red Meat is simply glorious after that last rant

http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/current/index.html ]]> Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:50:00 -0500 http://www.drewhowe.net/C1103020879/E20060225135000/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20060225133404/index.html New York Times Article

If you may recall, during the 04 election campaign, Bush officials pushed churches to take sides in the political arena, and endorse a candidate. As it's coming out now, it appears democrats attempted to do the same thing, although less visibly. Some of these churches did end up essentially endorsing a candidate, and thanks to some whistle-blowers (and some organizations that seem to be all-whistle), they may be losing their tax exempt status this year.

It appears that some of the religious organizations facing questioning are getting it not for big "Vote Kerry" signs or pamphlets, but also for infractions like the content of a sermon being strongly one-sided. At this point I say something to the effect of "whoaaa now..."

At the first sight of this issue, especially since only Bush was involved, I was disgusted. How could a church in its right mind wholeheartedly endorse a presidential candidate, when any "bible believing" Christian should know that we should be in the world but not of the world. We're supposed to put our home in heaven, not in DC. If someone (as a mediocre Christian Rock band titled their CD) were to ask us "Take me to your leader," we should skip over finding directions to a ranch in Texas, and start talking about Jesus.

As a social/political event, what does this mean to the church? I'm certainly not okay with my pastor insisting we all vote for a republican. A democrat? Well, it would still bug me. But when it comes to critiquing politics from the pulpit, it seems like the IRS shouldn't be able to touch it. Does the separation of church and state give rights to the government to maintain that separation? I would hate to think that every time a preacher talks about one candidate as a fallible individual from the pulpit (or in today's terms, from the fresnel-spotlight lit stage) they would be forced to either mention the other candidates, or face federal taxes on behalf of their church. Not only is this a free speech problem-- but who says the pastor represents the motives of the church when he says something politically biased? And who owns the money that would be taxed? Many times, the legal body of a church is separated from those people who are responsible for its overall message.

The outcome of this is yet to be seen, obviously-- but we could have a very strange battle on our hands. My favorites, like Tony Campolo should be safe- he does a good job of yelling at both sides equally. Any preacher I'm prone to appreciate has a good sense of how to tear at both sides-- and any congregation I would like to be a part of would be at least slightly politically mixed. I sure would love it if Mr. Falwell ended up with a big IRS bill after all of the embarrassing comments he made on the unwilling behalf of Christianity... but this is getting dangerous.

Thoughts? Candidates for who the most-taxed preacher in America aught to be? Stories? Comment, dangit! ]]> Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:34:04 -0500 http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20060225133404/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C1146917966/E20060218145620/index.html So, everyone remember that headline, "America is Addicted to Oil", coming from President Bush's mouth during the state of the union. Yeah, I fell asleep during it too, which is why I asked if you remembered the headline. As with any politician, the question is... okay, you said it, now what will you say in three weeks, and, what will actually happen? Well, here's what is actually happening:

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70248-0.html?tw=rss.technology

(waits for you to read)


Bush proposed a number of different things, including large amounts of money to develop hydrogen fuel cell and other alternative energy sources. Like zero emission coal and nuclear. As the cynical liberal I am, well, I knew all we would hear down the road is the second sentence. Guess what? Looks like I might have been right. For the sake of the world, I would much rather have to deal with George Bush actually turning into an environmentalist and helping the world, but it is still a little soothing that I am right about his essentially lying on this one, so far.

So you notice in the article they mention the potential for terrorists to get ahold of plutonium separated out in this process of recycling spent radioactive fuel, and Bush mentions how "safe" the new plan would be, since it does not involve any output of plutonium that would then have to be shipped and could potentially end up in the hands of terrorists. And then he proposes the utopian idea of sending radioactive fuel to "developing nations" in order for them to use it in nuclear reactors, and for them to ship it back in order for us recycle it and send them more.

Did I miss something here? I know uranium isn't as dangerous as plutonium but... it's dangerous enough. Terrorists could make dirty bombs, easily. Where do they live? Oh yeah, in developing nations. And what was that he was just saying about being able to refine plutonium from uranium? Haven't we been talking about North Korea and Iran working on that? And furthermore where are these developing nations that have a current need for nuclear energy?

Suffice to say the plan doesn't make sense. Is this the new plan? Knock over a nation we don't like, so as to make them "developing", then hire Bechtel, GE and Halliburton to deck the place out with a brand new power-plant or 30, sell them some recycled radioactive fuel, and call it a day? With all these shipments of radioactive fuel going back and forth, it's going to end up in someone's soup and salad special, if the terrorists have anything to say. Unlike the United States, terrorists do not require that their weapons be the newest, most accurate, and most expensive. Quite on the contrary, they seem to prefer stolen, cheap, and as simplistic as possible.

So, the real question, in the end is, why worry about this complex completely undeveloped technology in recycling spent radioactive fuel when the number of nuclear reactors in the nation has gone down not up, and there are other forms of renewable energy that don't involve the possibility of a catastrophic loss of life, or need 13 billion dollars per year in investments to get off the ground? Nuclear energy is not safe. If all goes well, it is, but let us not forget 3 mile island and Chernobyl, and again, the potential of dirty bombs and everything else. Holy crap, let's just get $13 billion per year in solar panels and wind generators! What would Bush be backing if we managed to talk the oil-industry fueling technology firms to start putting their R&D heart in non-nuclear renewables? Are we just going to have to wait until this generation of white-haired texas-drawling CEO's croaks for the "wonderful" age of destroying the environment in the name of power ends? ]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:56:20 -0500 http://www.drewhowe.net/C1146917966/E20060218145620/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C1146917966/E20060206140212/index.html Anyone remember that whole "don't buy gas on Friday" thing, or any other recent attempts at creating nationwide (or even local) protests about oil prices and the oil industry via not buying gas from specific companies, etc.? I always thought they were dumb, but now I know for sure, thanks to Paul Clementi (J.D.), who's teaching the class on Oil I'm currently taking. This comment is taken from the heart of one of this lectures, so any kudos are his.

Here's the plain and simple truth: They don't care. The worlwide oil market is so huge, consisting of so many different profit making markets, that first of all, any boycott at the pump (at least one that is feasibly successful) won't be felt. In fact, most of the money in oil (including ExxonMobil's current giganto profits) is not in selling gasoline to joe shmoe-- the big bucks come from the production of crude, and its sale on the commodities market. Oil companies are profit making bodies- which means that they make money on everything they can. Everything from shipping crude and the refining process to producing plastics products and chemicals consist of potential profits-- compartmentalized from the rest of the company. So what happens if NO ONE bought oil from Exxon's gas stations? They would sell it to a different distributor, let go of their network of company owned, leased, and franchised gas stations-- and keep raking in the profits (you might notice that they aready have chosen to sell off a considerable amount of their stations). If everyone did a boycott on Exxon worldwide, they could still sell the crude they produce on the commodities market, and make a killing thanks to OPEC's price fixing. Sucking oil out of the ground makes too much money for us to stop them from a mere boycott. Not to mention, we can't afford a boycott. (see also: we need oil way too much).

I used the example from class not just because Exxon is particularly sucky (or because this was the example lectured on in class (: )-- but because of the point it makes about reliance on oil. Exxon isn't really foreign oil. A large amount of its production is in the U.S., and it's not associated with OPEC. In other words, this is the non-foreign oil we've been *dreaming* of. And we still have no control over prices, the environmental impact, or corporate responsibility.

Now why is that again? Oh yeah. What are those socially legitimized norms that we write on paper and are supposed to be enforced called? Laws! That's it. What if we did things like... enforced environmental restrictions properly... and spend significant amounts of government money on using anything but oil? How about this: a government program that promises all new US Government cars and trucks would utilize alternative fuel technology of some sort (ie hybrid for vehicles that must make random trips, fuel cell for standard vehicles like mail trucks that have usual routes) and government filling stations that include hydrogen as an option to support these cars. It would hurt us now, but if the government were to put its money where George W.'s mouth wondered last week, maybe something could change. We are indeed, addicted to oil. I'll skip over the conversation where I ask why it took us to hear it from G. Dubb. to believe it on a national level, in the interest of time.

So what should you do? Threaten your congressmen and senators with a No Solution, No Vote program. They don't vote for solutions, or create them, you don't vote for them of give them campaign contributions. Buy a car that is efficient! And most importantly, flip off Exxon tanker truck drivers when you see them on the highway. That'll do us a lot of good, and will certainly lower the price of gas. ]]> Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:02:12 -0500 http://www.drewhowe.net/C1146917966/E20060206140212/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20060115192753/index.html Yes indeed, I'm back from a one month break from blogging, and will soon return to procrastinating and not adding any new posts instead. The menu for this semester:

Sociology of Religion with Dr. Monteiro
Socialization and Group Relations with Mtika
The Power Politics and Ethics of Oil with Dr. Clementi
Capstone: Love with Dr. Bouldin (it's not as cheesy as it sounds, I promise)
Accelerated Elementary Spanish with Ramirez (maybe I'll learn something this time)

Assuming my books get here on time, I should have a good semester. You'll be seeing course material show up in my rants soon enough, and in the mean time, be thankful :-P. More to come soon.... ]]> Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:27:53 -0500 http://www.drewhowe.net/C757537472/E20060115192753/index.html http://www.drewhowe.net/C1153620644/E20051216154040/index.html For those of you who are up to date, this issue isn't news. But I still feel like ranting.

So who knows about seed patenting? What about agreements regarding saving seed? What about genetic engineering that has been done to prevent plants from reproducing?

It's scary stuff. Companies are being allowed to genetically modify crops, and then patent their revisions. It's been a long-standing part of the seed business to require growers to sign contracts that prevent them from saving seed (or plant seeds resulting from the crops they grow). And now, with advanced genetic modification happening, seed manufacturers (italicized because the process is no longer natural) are now making seeds that will not produce plants that make viable seeds.

So... here's my proposition. This is perversion. For those of you who are against abortion, or the very few of you who are against contraception, this should be a major concern to you. We have now, in the interest of profit, allowed the destruction of part of the natural ability for plants to do what God created them to do. It is unnatural. Plants should be able to reproduce naturally.

I watched a show on PBS sometime in the last year that gives even creepier information. Some of the plants that were first modified were corn plants. Corn plants reproduce by spreading corn silk through the air. Even the modified corn plants that don't reproduce do make silk. It contains genetic material. Genetically-modified genotypes are being spread through this corn silk- traveling from the midwest to as far away as Mexico. We could potentially start seeing organic unmodified crops inheriting the DNA that makes them incapable of reproducing.

So... we're making money off of destroying the natural functioning of the ecosystem. Great.

As Christians, and as world citizens, we should oppose this. Keeping farmers from saving seed and preventing plants from reproducing naturally makes it harder for them to make money, and wastes natural resources. This isn't quantified by anyone, but I have a feeling that the amount of farm subsidies we spend millions of dollars on annually in the United States could be drastically reduced if growers were allowed to resell excess seed and re-use the genetic material in the crops they grow by replanting. Who would hurt? Monsanto and the other seed companies (Con Agra, etc.). Why should we care? As far as I can tell, we shouldn't. Anyone have evidence to the contrary? Comments? Requests for references? I'm too lazy to give you references without a request.
]]> Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:40:40 -0500 http://www.drewhowe.net/C1153620644/E20051216154040/index.html