Manchin urges reversal of Keystone Pipeline XL

 President Biden has announced that the Keystone Pipeline XL will no longer receive the proper permits to continue construction via Executive Order. This comes as no shock as his administration, and Obama's, were very adamant about not letting it proceed. I will try to put out some pros for the pipeline and some of the leading cons, with a rebuttal for those.

Pros:

• 830,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands would be able to reach Gulf Coast refineries
• Upwards of $30 billion in tax and royalty revenues for Albertans in Canada
• Several indigenous groups would directly benefit from this, as they have provided permission and access to lands.
• The US will earn tax and royalties for each barrel pumped through the pipeline.

Cons:

• Tar sands are dirty, expensive, more bad adjectives.
• Yes they are. When gas is high, they become economical. If we can't or won't use them, we are left to get oil and gas from the Middle East or South America where they certainly care less about environmental factors.
• Potential environmental disasters are certain because pipelines leak
• This is correct. However, trains derail and tanker trucks crash. They create smaller scale disasters. Modern technology on the pipeline would help protect this. Also, delivering tar sand oil by ship is not eco friendly either as cargo ships are among the largest polluters on earth.
• Tar sands are more corrosive
• That's a fact. Can we remedy this? Who knows.
• The pipe runs over an aquifer in Nebraska. 
• This is the only excuse not to build this pipeline.
• It doesn't create many long term jobs, especially construction
• Is there such a thing as a permanent construction job? You don't build a skyscraper forever. There are starts and completion dates on all projects.

In conclusion, I think the Keystone pipeline XL would be good for our economy and good for our energy independence. So why should it not proceed?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senator-manchin-urges-biden-reverse-205014574.html

Dallas Mavericks to stop playing national anthem before games.

Growing up and to this day, I have always loved hearing the national anthem being played before sporting events I have attended. At Notre Dame there is a pageantry of the band playing the anthem followed by the Irish Guard raising the flag. Or well known singers singing it prior to a big sporting event. It's always been nice to hear. 

Since several players started taking a knee or silent protesting during the anthem (which does not bother me at all), I have wondered why its played. Is it for the pageantry, tradition, or routine? We don't play it before a play in the theatre or at the cinema. We don't play it before many sporting events. 

Maybe it is time to not play it, or maybe just not make a spectacle out of it. I think each sport or event should decide on its own merits. The Super Bowl, Game 7 of the World Series, are huge events. The only time I think it should always be played is if you are playing for your country. Olympics and World Cup come to mind. The song represents your flag flying on your jersey. 

It is surprising since this became a news article is that Adam Silver stood firm on the league rules of enforcing the playing of the anthem. I expected the normally player friendly commissioner to disband the playing of the anthem to not upset any of the more vocal players in the NBA.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dallas-mavericks-stop-playing-national-150754782.html

Who should the Jets take with the 2nd pick in the NFL draft?

 The New York Jets are in a very opportunistic spot with the 2nd overall pick in the 2021 NFL draft. All told, they possess 6 picks in the first 98 selections. Most mock drafts have them taking a quarterback with the second pick, either Justin Fields or Zach Wilson. With their second 1st rounder, most mocks have them taking an edge rusher. I believe they need to rethink this strategy.

Scenario 1

Attempt to trade their bevy of picks along with Sam Darnold to the Texans for Deshaun Watson. They would receive a top 5 quarterback in a league where they hold all the cards to winning a Super Bowl. Watson's contract would be very affordable for his talent. You would get him for 5 years, plus any additional franchise tags. The cap hit for the first year would be around $10.5M, ballooning to $35M in 2022, $37M in 2023, before lowering to $32M for 2024 and 2025. 

Scenario 2

Keep Darnold. With a new coach, maybe you roll the dice with him as your quarterback. He is still on his rookie deal. I can't see him performing to the level of meeting a $30M/year average quarterback, but if he tanks you move on. If he accelerates his progress under a new coach, maybe you can get him for $15-23M/year, keeping some flexibility. With the 2nd overall pick, I think its slightly too high to take any of the wide receivers. Maybe a team a few spots back loves Fields or Wilson (I don't like either. Wilson hasn't shown me that he is elite and Fields is too brittle for me). I would take Penei Sewell at OT from Oregon. Give Darnold a second elite tackle for protection. He is by far the best offensive lineman in this draft. With the 23rd overall pick, I would the best defensive player available or take someone like Travis Etienne. The Jets need defense and they need to replace the timeless Frank Gore.

Choice

I would keep Darnold. I think he has what it takes to be a quarterback in the league. He may never be elite, but I also think mortgaging your future for Deshaun Watson isn't going to help this team win in the next few years. Maybe kick the tires with both firsts this year, maybe a 3rd rounder from this year, and a 2nd from 2022, along with Darnold. With the price the Rams paid for Stafford, that may not be enough.

Reference:

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-mock-draft-2021-jets-dolphins-cowboys-patriots/1jr0c2gz92z4g14to3p2m751e4

US House expected to advance Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID aid package

Today, I will give my thoughts on the recently passed COVID aid package. To start off, here are a couple of the notable aspects of the bill:

• $400 billion to fight coronavirus, speed up vaccinations, and reopen closed schools
• Large scale support of high income earners not being eligible for stimulus checks
• $300/week unemployment insurance supplement due to expire in March
• $1400 direct payments for each individual (not sure if there is a cap or what)

What I did not like about the passing of this package:

• Done through budget resolution/reconciliation package, meaning it required the slimmest majority to be passed with VP Harris breaking the tie.
• Does not address teacher unions whom are fighting the reopening of schools.
• Democrats want a $15 federal minimum wage tacked on at a time when small business is STILL suffering.
• Money is intended to go to state and local governments to help budget crisis. 

I am all for more money going to people, after all it came from our hard work to begin with. We need to get kids back in school. It needs to be safe, but kids have not shown to be the transmit vectors we were inclined to believe. I don't believe the government should be bailing out states or cities will federal money UNLESS it is with the same conditions they forced companies like Ford to take back in 2008/2009. It must be paid back, with interest, within a reasonable amount of time. 

I haven't seen if there is any continuation of the Payroll Protection Act from the first stimulus. Our small businesses employ a vast majority of this country in jobs that actually create tangible goods and provide real services. Without them we would be stuck with multinational brands in every sector from food to retail to services. I don't know about you, but I like eating at local restaurants, purchasing goods made locally, and knowing that if the service I received needs further that I can call a local person to attend to it.

It's important to note that roughly 25% of the previous $4 trillion in aid has gone unspent from packages approved in the last year. Why hasn't this been spent or given to the populace as more stimulus? $1 trillion dollars would be equal to roughly $3,000 per individual in the country. That would seem to be a better stopgap at eliminating poverty, something that the initial stimulus did a very good job at decreasing.

References:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-congress/democrats-clear-path-for-approval-of-bidens-1-9-trillion-covid-package-idUSKBN2A514V

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/covid-stimulus-package-senate-kamala-harris-b1798087.html