Multi Medium

Tone-Deafness: We Haz It

The Obama administration continues to demonstrate their ultra-keen political instincts and compassion for the common man.  First up, Ken Salazar going to bat for the oil industry:

July’s decision halted development on billions of dollars in leases in the Arctic waters of the Chukchi Sea. Beistline found that the federal government didn’t follow environmental law before selling drilling rights. Among other things, he found the government had failed to analyze the environmental impact of natural gas development, “despite industry interest and specific lease incentives for such development,” according to court records.

The Obama administration is among those seeking clarification from Beistline, a rare recent case of the administration siding with the oil industry. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asked the court to narrow the ruling so that another company, Statoil, which owns 16 Chukchi leases, could start seismic testing roughly 100 miles from the coast. Government attorneys told the judge that Statoil, a global oil company partly owned by the Norwegian government, would likely face “significant economic losses” if it couldn’t proceed with seismic surveying.

Statoil said Tuesday it might cancel the seismic tests it hoped to do in the Chukchi this summer because it remains unclear whether the company will be allowed to do the work.

Environmental groups said they were stunned by the administration move, which they said undercuts the administration’s recent decisions to put the brakes on Arctic exploration in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

And, they said, marine mammals such as whales and walruses can be harmed by the testing. The impact of such tests on marine life was one of the issues the court said the federal government failed to consider adequately before issuing the Arctic drilling leases.

Awesome.  So nice to see the Interior’s deep concern for protecting the environment from the offshore oil industry.

And then there’s the always-reliable, prosperity-is-just-around-the-corner Tim Geithner:

Until now, President Obama and his advisers have been adamant that Congress should extend the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts only for individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000, leaving tax rates on upper-income earners to increase as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2011.

But when asked repeatedly on ABC’s “Good Morning America” whether he would recommend that Obama veto an extension of the upper-income tax cuts, Geithner refused to commit.

(…)

“If you extend particularly these tax cuts that only go to 2 percent of the highest-earning Americans, then there’d be a much higher probability they’ll be extended indefinitely,” Geithner said. That would dramatically drive up the deficit and be “a deeply fiscally irresponsible act,” he added.

But asked again whether he would commit to a veto threat against any legislation extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts for now, Geithner responded “no.”

This sounds an awful lot like the healthcare reform fiasco, where Obama repeatedly claimed to support the public option, but refused to commit to vetoing any bill without it.  And after the way that turned out, it’s hard not to interpret a refusal to veto as a signal of tacit support.

Add comment August 4th, 2010 at 07:24am Posted by Eli

Won’t Someone Think Of The Oil Companies?

Shorter Jonah Goldberg: The offshore drilling ban is the real tragedy of the Gulf.

No, really.  Because he has cheerfully embraced Michael Grunwald’s happy propaganda story about how the oil is all dissolving and everything’s going to be fine and the environmental impact isn’t really a big deal at all (um, right).  He also appears to embrace Grunwald’s assumption that any dead animal carcasses that are not obviously covered with oil must therefore have died of natural causes.  Either that or he’s incredibly dishonest, but surely that can’t be true, right?

Some birds were oiled and died, always a sad sight. But according to Time magazine, the number of birds killed is — so far — less than 1 percent of the avian casualties of the Exxon Valdez. And to date, only three oiled mammal carcasses have been recovered. Three.

Wow, three sure is a small number, isn’t it?  Maybe there isn’t anything to worry about after all!

But if you look at the actual report (PDF) from the Deepwater Horizon Response site (which probably has best-case numbers, and of course doesn’t count dead animals that weren’t recovered), you see that while there were only three oiled mammal carcasses, there were 64 overall. Still not a huge number, but bigger than Jonah’s carefully-parsed figure by a factor of 21.  And mammals are the smallest of the categories encompassed by the report.  There are 504 dead sea turtles, and 3455 dead birds (but that’s nowhere near the number of birds killed by the Exxon Valdez spill, so that’s okay).  But no count of the number of dead fish, or shrimp, or oysters, much less damage to coral reefs and other deep-sea habitats, or even the number of Gulf residents and cleanup workers sickened by dispersants or oil fumes or tainted seafood.

But hey, we only found three dead mammals with oil on them, so that proves that this is just those crazy tree-hugging liberals getting hysterical again and trying to take away everyone’s jobs!  I’m surprised Jonah didn’t cite the lack of seal, otter and walrus casualties as proof that BP’s environmental response plan is working perfectly.

Add comment August 3rd, 2010 at 08:18pm Posted by Eli

Tony Hayward Blames Everyone Else

Tony Hayward attempts to spread blame across the drilling industry like his failed rig has spread oil across the Gulf of Mexico:

BP maintains that it alone does not deserve all the blame for the April 20 accident and its aftermath, and it intends to pursue legal action to have drilling partners share in the cost of containment and cleanup. Those partners include Transocean, which operated the rig; Cameron, which built the blowout preventer that failed to shut down the well; and Halliburton, which cemented the oil drill into place underwater.

“It is clear the accident was the result of multiple equipment errors and human error involving many companies,” Hayward said in the webcast.

(…)

Hayward also defended his record on safety. “Safety, people and performance have been my watchwords,” he said. “We’ve made significant progress.”

Wow.  Way to man up and accept responsibility, Tony.  Even if we grant the rather shaky premise that Transocean, Cameron and Halliburton did shoddy work, it was BP calling the shots, and BP that made all of the fatally bad safety-last decisions that led inevitably to disaster.

It was BP that chose a wellbore design without seals or a liner – and then chose to skip the acoustic test which would have detected any flaws in Halliburton’s cement job.  It was BP that falsely claimed that BOP failures were “inconceivable” and declined to install a backup unit.  It was BP that cut corners on testing the BOP and ignored the presence of rubber sealant in the drilling fluid.  And it was BP that ignored all the warning signs of dangerous pressure and replaced the drilling mud with seawater.

In short, even if there were quality issues with Transocean, Cameron and Halliburton, BP deliberately turned a blind eye to potential problems in order to get the Deepwater Horizon pumping as quickly as possible, and now eleven people are dead and the entire Gulf ecosystem may be dying.  Heckuva job, Tony.

(Cross-posted at the Seminal)

Add comment July 28th, 2010 at 07:28am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Journalism

The New Republic hires a right-wing liar as their new fact-checker, apparently out of fear that their stories may contain too many facts.

You guys do know that no matter how much you try to distance yourselves from reality, conservatives will still accuse you of liberal bias, right?

Add comment July 10th, 2010 at 06:09pm Posted by Eli

Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind

Wow.  And this guy’s a “marine scientist”…

But not everyone is convinced that all of this cleanup business is necessary. For instance take George Crozier, a marine scientist from the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, who thinks everyone should just suck it up and learn to live with it:

“Buried is buried. It will get carved up by a hurricane at some point, but I see no particular advantage to digging it up,” he said. “It’s a human environmental hazard only because people don’t want to go to the beach if it’s got tar balls on it.”

Fantastic.  As long as it’s under the sand, there’s nothing to worry about.  Sure, a hurricane might spread it all over the Southeast, but I’m sure it’ll be fine.

Add comment July 8th, 2010 at 07:32pm Posted by Eli

Elle MacPherson Dooms Rhinos To Extinction

Elle MacPherson reveals that the secret to looking good is… preying on an endangered species:

Elle Macpherson, aka “The Body,” is being blasted by animal-rights advocates for a technique she uses to keep her body looking good.

The 47-year-old supermodel and host of “Britain’s Next Top Model” told the Times of London that she eats powdered rhinoceros horn as a beauty treatment.

“Put it this way, it works for me,” Macpherson tweeted to the Times Online.

(…)

The International Fund for Animal Welfare is so outraged by Macpherson’s confession that it has prepared an informational brochure to send to the superstar about the plight of the rhino and the use of alternative treatments.

“There is no excuse for using any endangered animal products,” spokeswoman Erica Martin told SkyNews.

“First and foremost, selling rhino products is illegal and in breach of CITES,” she said. “And secondly, four out of five species of rhino are literally on the brink of extinction. Elle has been a successful businesswoman with a high public profile for decades, and people do listen to what she says.”

That’s great, thanks a lot, Elle.  The rhino population will be lucky to last a week now.  Here’s the best part, though:

Macpherson’s admission comes just one year after the supermodel publicly boycotted a London restaurant for serving endangered bluefin tuna.

Oh yeah, she’s soooo concerned about the endangered species.  What a colossal narcissistic phony.

2 comments July 7th, 2010 at 07:10am Posted by Eli

Co-Wanker Of The Day (Part 2)

Joe Barton:

BP’s CEO, Tony (I want my life back!) Hayward is testifying today before a House Committee, and he just received a heartfelt apology from one of his most loyal subjects. Joe Barton (R. Texas) just apologized to BP.

The Republican Party’s quintessential oil Congressman, Barton told Hayward how shameful it was that the Obama Administration would “shake down” BP by demanding that it give up dividends to shareholders and instead set aside a small fraction of their net revenues to the greedy Gulf folks who’ve been only slightly inconvenienced by losing their jobs, their livelihoods, and their environment. Never mind that BP agreed to this on its own, because it knows or fears it’s legal liability may eventually become worse.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people???

For what it’s worth, even some of his fellow Republicans think that was beyond the pale (even if the GOP’s prevailing feeling is that we shouldn’t make BP pay too much), forcing Barton to issue a non-apology apology apology.  Or something.

Add comment June 18th, 2010 at 11:36am Posted by Eli

Republican Logic

Haley Barbour sums up the Republican position perfectly:

If BP is the responsible party under the law, they’re to pay for everything. I do worry that this idea of making them make a huge escrow fund is going to make it less likely that they’ll pay for everything. They need their capital to drill wells. They need their capital to produce income. … But this escrow bothers me that it’s going to make them less able to pay us what they owe us. And that concerns me. … [I]t bothers me to talk about causing an escrow to be made, which will — which makes it less likely that they’ll make the income that they need to pay us.

Obama needs to be tougher about holding BP accountable… without harming them in any way.

Add comment June 17th, 2010 at 11:17am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Rand Paul, Concerned Environmentalist:

Q: What about mountaintop removal?

PAUL: I think whoever owns the property can do with the property as they wish, and if the coal company buys it from a private property owner and they want to do it, fine. The other thing I think is that I think coal gets a bad name, because I think a lot of the land apparently is quite desirable once it’s been flattened out. As I came over here from Harlan, you’ve got quite a few hills. I don’t think anybody’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there.

Sure, who needs stupid hills, right?  They’re always getting in the way of stuff and they’re hard to build on.

For an encore, maybe Paul can go down to the Gulf and tell them that he doesn’t think anybody’s going to be missing a few miles of shoreline here and there either.

Add comment June 14th, 2010 at 07:50am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

John Kerry, Environmental Champion:

File this one under not at all helpful:

Stopping offshore drilling is not a realistic option, the senator said.

“Now we are not going to stop drilling in the Gulf tomorrow, folks. Let’s be realistic. There are 48,000 wells out there. One of them went sour. About 30 percent of our transportation fuel comes from the Gulf. You think Americans are going to suddenly stop driving to work tomorrow? Do you think people are going to stop driving the trucks to deliver the goods to the department stores? Not going to happen,” said the Massachusetts Democrat.

This goes beyond the strictly political argument I’ve heard from staffers, which says that drilling is part of Senator Kerry’s energy legislation only because it may help pick up Republican support.  It remains to be seen whether that political calculation will pay dividends or end up costing the bill more support than it gains.

The bit about halting drilling ‘tomorrow’ is a straw-man designed to make opponents of offshore drilling seem extreme.  While some groups are calling for a pause on new permits, and others may be advocating taking steps to shut down currently operating offshore rigs, I haven’t seen anyone argue that we should stop drilling ‘tomorrow.’

Thanks, Big John.  Way to be a fierce advocate for the environment and brand the Democrats as the let’s-not-destroy-any-more-ecosystems party.

Add comment May 27th, 2010 at 06:25pm Posted by Eli

What’s The Worst That Could Happen?

Inconceivable!

When it approved BP’s 2009 plan to start an exploratory well 50 miles off the Louisiana coast — the same well that is now spewing millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf — the federal agency that oversees oil drilling assumed there would be little risk of a well blowout and likely no death to marine life if an accident were to happen.

BP estimated that in the worst case, a blowout at the well would spew out 162,000 barrels of oil every day, a massive figure that far exceeds any estimate of what is coming out now.

But in its exploration plan in March 2009, BP assured the federal Minerals Management Service that a well blowout was so unlikely that “a blowout scenario … is not required for the operations proposed.”

MMS then granted BP a “categorical exclusion” from a public review of the potential environmental impact of the drilling.

That was in line with the general view of MMS that a blowout was nothing to be feared. Before the lease of the oilfields in 2008, the MMS wrote a generic Environmental Impact Statement for the entire northern and western Gulf of Mexico that made the catastrophic well blowout that happened April 20 seem like a near impossibility.

MMS produced its blanket Environmental Impact Statement for 11 proposed leases, mostly off the Louisiana and Texas coasts. One of those planned sales was Lease Sale 206, which gave BP the right to drill at what is known as Mississippi Canyon 252 with a Transocean oil rig called Deepwater Horizon.

The MMS assessed everything from the possible impact of noise on marine life to the specific vulnerabilities of sea turtles and sturgeon, but through it all, the agency assumed any oil that might be spilled would be minimal and any leak would be quickly shut off.

(…)

When it comes to the type of oil well blowout that happened April 20, MMS was downright dismissive. The agency determined that fewer than six of every 10,000 wells would have a blowout that caused any oil to spill. Blowouts are “rare events of short duration,” the study stated, and “the infrequent subsurface blowout that may occur on the Gulf OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) would have a negligible effect on commercial fishing.”

That paved the way for BP to assert that its plans for drilling in Lease Sale 206 posed no real dangers.

After stating that 162,000 barrels a day is the worst-case scenario from a blowout of the well, BP certifies that it “has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge.” Elsewhere in the document, the company states it could deal with a loss of well control by drilling a relief well, but states a “further discussion of response to an oil spill resulting from the activities proposed in this plan is not required for this Exploration Plan.”

I mean, how could anyone possibly expect that there might be an uncontrollable blowout in a well a mile underwater?  Why, that’s just crazy talk!

Add comment May 27th, 2010 at 07:13am Posted by Eli

It’s Not Just The Fish

I’m sure no one could have anticipated that there would be a human cost as well:

Desperation is setting in in Southeast Louisiana. “I spoke to a group of fishermen, mainly Vietnamese Americans and a group of them came up to me and said, they told me that they contemplated suicide because they’re in such despair,” says Congressman Joseph Cao. He says fishermen are feeling compounded stress on top of post-Katrina troubles. “For some people, this is almost a boiling point where they can no longer handle it and they’re going to crack.”

“These are grown men that broke down and cried this morning because they don’t know what to do and we don’t know how long it’s going to be,” says Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser.

That’s why Cao and organizations like Volunteers of America are working to get mental health workers on the ground to intervene. “They’ve just recovered as a result of their businesses, their homes and the rebuilding effort and now you have a number of these small businesses, these fishermen, who have to go through this all over again,” says Voris Vigee with the Volunteers of America. She says organizations are expediting crisis and mental health counseling among other disaster-related services.

Maybe BP’s CEO and COO should come down and explain to the distraught fishermen that “the overall impact… will be very, very modest” and they’re “very optimistic that the gulf will fully recover.” So you see, there’s really nothing to worry about, just ignore all those terrible alarmist scientists and reports of 24-mile stretches of wetlands being killed stone dead.

And if that doesn’t work, there’s always the old standby, “At least you still have your health.”

Add comment May 22nd, 2010 at 07:25pm Posted by Eli

All You Need To Know

…About the culture at MMS:

The director of the Minerals Management Service in Alaska is apologizing to colleagues for having a cake at a recent meeting with the words ”Drill, Baby, Drill” on it.

Yes, this was after the Deepwater Horizon blew up and unleashed an environmental holocaust.

…And about the culture in the Obama White House:

That the WH called reporters into the press office privately today to criticize them for asking about BP over & over is disturbing

Seriously???  Obama is playing Dubya’s “trust us and don’t ask questions, we know what we’re doing” card?

The oil industry rules our world, apparently.  Or at least our government.

2 comments May 22nd, 2010 at 04:01pm Posted by Eli

The Real Villains

It’s those damn scientists, of course:

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell: Some of the scientific estimates, Mr Dudley, have been vastly hugher. The Perdue scientist Steve Wereley said that as much as 100,000 barrels a day – 4.2 million gallons of oil every day were leaking. Could it be that bad?

BP’s Dudley: Andrea, it’s not anything like that, and I find those statements alarming. I think they’re alarming to the people on the Gulf Coast. I think it actually damages the Gulf Coast. There are people now saying, “I don’t want to near Florida, Alabama, Mississippi.” Those beaches are clean, the fishing is good. I think it’s actually hurting the local economy with that sort of alarmist statements. No. I think it’s highly unlikely oil will actually reach the beaches of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi.

It’s a well-known fact that the leading cause of fish kills is actually alarmist scientists.  Sea life is very sensitive to bad vibes, you see.

Add comment May 21st, 2010 at 11:35am Posted by Eli

Whose Side Are They On Again?

It sure does look like MMS sees their role as facilitator rather than regulator…

A proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean as early as this summer received initial permits from the Minerals Management Service office in Alaska at the same time federal auditors were questioning the office about its environmental review process.

The approvals also came after many of the agency’s most experienced scientists had left, frustrated that their concerns over environmental threats from drilling had been ignored.

Minerals Management has faced intense scrutiny in the weeks since the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. An article in The New York Times reported that it failed to get some environmental permits to approve drilling in the gulf and ignored objections from scientists to keep those projects on schedule.

Similar concerns are being raised about the agency’s handling of a plan by Shell Oil to begin exploratory drilling in the Arctic’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

The Shell plan has stirred controversy for many years among environmentalists and advocates of the endangered bowhead whale, which is legally hunted in the area for subsistence by Alaska Natives.

Opponents have argued that an oil spill would be virtually impossible to contain, given the region’s remoteness, its severe weather and ice and limited onshore support.

The investigation of the Minerals Management’s Alaska office by the Government Accountability Office, completed in March, examined the environmental review process for proposed offshore leasing in southwest Alaska, which has since been canceled.

But it also raised questions about future leasing plans in the Beaufort and Chukchi at the time the agency was deciding whether to allow Shell to go forward on leases it had purchased. The Shell project received critical initial permits from Minerals Management last fall, though it still needs several final approvals.

The G.A.O. found that the Alaska branch deliberately avoided establishing consistent guidelines for determining whether future leases would cause significant environmental impacts in the Arctic — a finding that could require further examination and delay or prevent drilling.

Umm, I also thought there was a moratorium on new offshore drilling?  Perhaps that word does not mean what I think it means…

Add comment May 21st, 2010 at 06:55am Posted by Eli

My Brilliant Genius Plan To Fix Everything

Convince Obama that Wellpoint, PhRMA, Goldman Sachs, the oil industry, Pete Peterson, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Rahm Emanuel are all gay.

Because they could all use a little more “fierce advocacy.”

(Cross-posted at The Seminal)

Add comment May 19th, 2010 at 06:57am Posted by Eli

Insane Disturbing Stat Of The Day

In case you need more proof of just how completely unhinged and, well, kind of evil Republicans are…

We have some new national polling coming out tomorrow on offshore drilling. The most astounding number from the poll? 28% of Republicans said the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico made them more likely to support drilling off the coast to an equal 28% who said it made them less likely to be supportive. 44% said it made no difference to them and that’s understandable, but why would an oil spill make you more supportive of drilling?

The only two explanations I can think of are:

1) “Fuck you, liberals!  Anything that drives them this crazy must be a good thing.”

2) “Now that I’ve seen the offshore drilling worst-case scenario… it’s not so bad, really.  Losing an entire coastline every once in a while seems like an acceptable risk to me.”

(h/t Michael Whitney)

2 comments May 11th, 2010 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

No! Really?

What?  Outrage over the BP disaster won’t lead to meaningful reform?

No one could have anticipated…

Add comment May 10th, 2010 at 07:01am Posted by Eli

Wow, It’s Like Deja Vu

So let me see… willful lack of government oversight enables risky and negligent practices, which inevitably lead to a massively devastating and costly catastrophe which everyone involved claims was completely impossible to foresee.

Why does this sound so familiar?

I guess the next step is a lot of tough talk and posturing about stronger regulations by Congress and Obama, which will eventually get watered down to nothing more than window dressing after an all-out industry lobbying campaign.

3 comments May 6th, 2010 at 11:58am Posted by Eli

Lindsey Takes His Ball And Goes Home

Lindsey Graham refuses to support the climate change bill that has his own name on it:

The effort to enact comprehensive climate and energy legislation this year suffered a critical blow Saturday when Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), the key Republican proponent of the bill, withdrew his support because of what he said was a “cynical political” decision by Democrats to advance immigration legislation first.

The move forced the other two authors of the climate and energy bill, Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), to cancel a much-anticipated news conference planned for Monday at which they were to unveil the plan they negotiated with Graham.

Graham, who spent weeks working with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on an immigration measure that will appeal to both parties, wrote in an open letter Saturday to leaders of the climate effort, “Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy.”

I guess not everyone can be as noble and idealistic as the guy who co-authored an environmental bill that he doesn’t believe in.

Add comment April 26th, 2010 at 07:04am Posted by Eli

Who Needs April Fools?

…When Republicans and Blanche Lincoln (but I repeat myself) are taking credit for healthcare reform?

…When the teabagger holding the (misspelled) N-word sign complains that teabaggers are being unfairly accused of racism?

…When anti-government militia members ask the government to provide them with defense counsel?

…When drug companies are investigating the FDA?

…When Tim Geithner laments how “deeply unfair” it is that all of the bailout’s benefits have gone to Wall Street?

…When a Democratic president embraces “Drill, Baby, Drill”?

April First is just another day now.

Add comment April 1st, 2010 at 11:34am Posted by Eli

Whatever Happened To The Cheney Doctrine?

Peter Daou takes on the climate change deniers – I found this passage particularly compelling:

Another conservative writer goes on about “unsettled science,” as though we were engaging in a hypothetical legal exercise about the merits of reasonable doubt. In fact, this is our only planet. It’s the only place we can survive. We can’t afford to take chances. We can’t afford to do anything less than everything in our power to rectify the problem. We have no choice but to be alarmists — there’s no second chance. We get it wrong and we’ve doomed our children and their children. For what? Because we don’t want to recycle? Because we don’t want to stop polluting? Because we don’t want to bother making sacrifices? Because we don’t want some eager young kid who cares about the earth to dictate to us? Because we don’t like Al Gore? How profoundly selfish can someone be, to deny what they see with their own eyes: car fumes, bus fumes, truck fumes, factory fumes, chemical waste, human waste, toxins coursing through our waterways, in our food, filth we create in immense quantities turning our planet into a garbage dump.

If anything, we should be outdoing one another trying to address the issue, not smugly questioning the need for action under the guise that the science is imperfect. Reversing the damage we’re doing to the earth should be a priority for every citizen. Instead, environmentalism is treated like an annoyance that the media will occasionally poll about and that we bring to the fore once every April.

The right’s willingness to take the hugest of chances that global warming is junk science or some elaborate Al Gore hoax is particularly striking when you consider the Cheney Doctrine that they’re so enamored of:

Cheney defined it: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It’s not about our analysis … It’s about our response.” Suskind writes, “So, now spoken, it stood: a standard of action that would frame events and responses from the Administration for years to come.”‘

Why such a heavy bias towards action on an improbable threat, and such a heavy bias against action on a much more probable and truly existential one?  Republicans embrace a 1% Doctrine on terrorism, yet it’s more like 99.9% when the fate of the entire planet is at stake.

If I didn’t know any better, I might almost think that their policy prescriptions aren’t really about protecting us from harm.

Add comment March 3rd, 2010 at 11:29am Posted by Eli

Ignoring The Obvious

Al Gore and Michael Hiltzik speak the unspeakable truths about global warming and the healthcare industry industry.

But since they’re both advocating change that would not be profitable, Congress – especially the Senate – will continue to hide their heads in the sand until it’s too late.  Assuming it isn’t already.

Add comment March 1st, 2010 at 07:17am Posted by Eli

Environmentalist Of The Year

Osama bin Laden, who is so committed to the cause of preventing climate change that he’s willing to try to bring down the United States to save the Earth.  Awesome.

Of course, if he really wanted to do something constructive for the planet, perhaps he could have refrained from doing everything humanly possible to guarantee George W. Bush a second term…

(Also, there’s the little detail that taking down the US wouldn’t actually stop global warming.)

Add comment January 30th, 2010 at 01:13pm Posted by Eli

What I’ve Been Saying

Scarecrow has a great post about just how badly Obama and the Democrats have sold us out on healthcare, and how pathetic our supposed “reform” is when compared to the rest of the developed world, and Drew Westen decries Obama’s abject lack of leadership.  I think the root cause is the same: Our government has become so completely captive to corporate donors that it is literally almost impossible to pass any bill that might harm corporate interests in any way.

As I put it back in July:

As the increasingly discouraging healthcare “reform” process plays out, the endgame makes the most sense when you remember that the Prime Directive for Obama and most of Congress is this:

First, do no harm… to the insurance companies.

(…)

This is why single-payor is off the table (and how many of today’s public option advocates wouldn’t prefer single-payor if they thought it was attainable?) – it would kill the insurance industry outright (aside from the much smaller business of providing gap coverage), whereas a correctly managed (i.e., small or unsuccessful) public option would only wound them.

The fundamental problem is that the starting point has never been “How do we improve healthcare for our constituents?”, but rather, “How do we make sure this doesn’t hurt the insurance industry?”

And at FDL in August:

Need to slash greenhouse emissions to prevent the ice caps from melting?  You have to do it without hurting the energy companies.

Need to rescue the economy and reform the financial system?  You have to do it without hurting Wall Street.

Need to make healthcare affordable and available to everyone?  You have to do it without hurting the insurance companies.

Need to reform campaign finance?  You have to do it without diminishing the influence of the corporations or the advantages of incumbency.

It is virtually impossible to achieve meaningful reform within such nonsensical parameters.

I wish I could see a way out of this loop, but campaign finance (the primary source of the corruption) is inside it.

3 comments December 21st, 2009 at 01:03pm Posted by Eli

We’re Outsourcing The Wrong Occupations

We need more journalists like that interviewer who almost made Dubya declare war on Ireland, or this reporter from Der Speigel:

Jim-Bo [Inhofe] was apparently surprised to learn that the rest of the world doesn’t dumb their reporters down enough to buy a load of crap like he was selling, because after he made his Republican paranoia jab at “Hollywood elite”, one reporter asked him if he were referring to Schwarzenegger, which he ignored. Darn them reporters. They’re supposed to nod in acquiescence whenever a skinned snake Republican points a finger! It worked for Bush.

And are you ready for the real treat? In response to Jim-Bo’s paranoid and inexplicable narrative, a disgusted reporter from Der Speigel shouted , “You’re ridiculous!”.

(…)

Ain’t it fun to go to places where the press don’t pretend up is down and down is up? And ain’t it great when they don’t suck the Republican lies dry in the retelling? Perhaps some countries learned the dangers of coddling nut jobs and selling propaganda the hard way. Oh, America, I fear for you.

(…)

Apparently flying into Copenhagen to announce that there is no global warming, providing no science to support your position, and avoiding the question by pointing fingers at “Hollywood elites” doesn’t carry as much water in some places as as it does here, in the land of the free.

*wistful sigh*

Just imagine how different the world might be – not just America, but the entire world – if we had a tough, skeptical, reality-based professional press corps like other countries have.

Add comment December 18th, 2009 at 01:24pm Posted by Eli

Using Karl’s Trick To Hide The Consensus

I admit, I haven’t been following this ridiculous global warming pseudoscandal very closely – it was immediately obvious that it was yet another manufactroversy where a whole bunch of conservative politicians and pundits wave around a pair of threes like they just got a royal flush.  Josh has a staggeringly comprehensive and awesome rundown at EnviroKnow, and I have to say that his first point gave me some serious deja vu:

1. The scientific consensus that humans are responsible for climate change — and that we must stabilize concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases at 350 parts per million — remains overwhelming. This latest cybercrime and the private emails it revealed do nothing whatsoever to change that.

(…)

Chris Mooney at the Intersection observes that these emails don’t actually imply anything substantive about climate science:

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most damning interpretations of these exposed emails are accurate. I don’t think this is remotely true, but let’s assume it.

Even if this is the case, it does not prove the following:

1) The scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.

2) The studies that have been called into questions based on the emails (e.g., that old chestnut the “hockey stick”) are somehow the foundations of our concern about global warming, and those concerns stand or fall based on those studies.

Neither one of these is true, which is why I can say confidently that “ClimateGate” is overblown–and which is why I’ve never been impressed by systematic attacks on the “hockey stick.” Even if that study falls, we still have global warming on our hands, and it’s still human caused.

Hmm, Republicans pretending that questions about the authenticity of one nonessential part of an otherwise overwhelmingly slam-dunk case invalidate the whole entire edifice of evidence?  Where have we heard that before?  Oh, that’s right – because a couple of memos might have been fakes (or reconstructions), that must mean that Dubya didn’t pull strings to get out of Vietnam, and didn’t walk out of his ANG commitment a year early.

Yep, the right is using the exact same strategy they used -successfully – to defuse Dubya’s military service timebomb.  But the reason that worked was that CBS folded, forcing Rather to apologize and essentially retract the entire story, rather than simply pointing out that it was never based on the memos, and was therefore not invalidated by the memos.

Of course, CBS was compromised and probably actively working to sabotage Rather – presumably the scientific community will not do the same.  It also doesn’t hurt that the progressive blogosphere is so much bigger now too, so the pushback should be a lot stronger.

My gut feeling is that this will blow over and do no lasting damage.  But not all by itself.

3 comments November 25th, 2009 at 09:33pm Posted by Eli

McCaskill: Congress Is Only Supposed To Do Easy Popular Things

Well, this is certainly inspiring:

Senate Majority Leader Reid Tuesday said Democrats will try to move a climate and energy bill early next year as part of a larger effort to address the economy.

“We’re going to try to do that sometime in the spring,” Reid said about the climate bill.

(…)

Some senators are skeptical lawmakers will be ready to tackle another huge issue after finishing health care. “After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don’t think anybody’s excited about doing another really, really big thing that’s really, really hard that makes everybody mad,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said. “Climate fits that category.”

Yes, apparently Congress has an allotment of one Big Difficult Thing per year.  That would certainly explain why they were so cautious and incrementalist during the Bush Era, right?

3 comments November 19th, 2009 at 11:36am Posted by Eli

What’s The Opposite Of Defamation?

And can you really sue for it?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a civil complaint on Monday against members of a liberal activist group who staged a news conference to falsely announce that the 3 million-member business federation had reversed its stance on climate change legislation.

(…)

As part of its hoax on Oct. 19, Yes Men announced at the National Press Club that the chamber would stop lobbying against the Senate’s 800-page climate bill. Reuters moved a story based on the false press release, and both CNBC and Fox Business Network reported it – with the anchors correcting themselves mid-story upon learning it was false.

I know, the lawsuit is more about trademark violation, but I think it’s hilarious and a little surreal that the Chamber is suing the Yes Men for trying to make them look like they weren’t complete amoral assholes for one day.

Add comment October 27th, 2009 at 09:35pm Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Chris Packham:

“Here’s a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac,” Packham told Radio Times magazine.

Packham believes that money spent on conserving the panda would be better invested in other animals as the species is not strong enough to survive alone.

“It’s not a strong species. Unfortunately it’s big and cute and it’s a symbol of the WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature) — and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation,” he added.

“I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go, with a degree of dignity …”

(…)

Packham, who is president of Britain’s Bat Conservation Trust and vice-president of the Wildlife Trusts, also saw a grim outlook for endangered tigers.

“I don’t think tigers are going to last another 15 years,” he said. “How can you conserve an animal that is worth more dead than alive? You can’t.”

Um, isn’t the whole point of conservation to protect species that would otherwise go extinct?  And while it’s true that pandas are the anti-cockroach, they were doing just fine until humans destroyed their primary habitat, so they’re evidently not quite the abject evolutionary failures that Packham says they are (and most certainly not “of [their] own accord”).

Add comment September 23rd, 2009 at 01:14pm Posted by Eli