A Tiny Revolution: Did Rumsfeld tour a KGB torture museum to pick up useful tips?
Welcome Back to Pottersville: Oh! That Kaiser Permanente...
Raw Story: Skeptics claim stolen emails prove global warming is a hoax
The Progressive Puppy: Fundies plan attacks on lesbian Mayoral candidate during runoff
I Am TRex: How the bastards do it
NotionsCapital: Expense Account Adultry
Chuck Norris seems to have been hanging out listening to his good buddy Glenn Beck a bit much these days.
He went on Neil Cavuto's Fox News show yesterday and regurgitated a lot Beck's talking points about how Obama is radically transforming the country, but took them the next logical step into militia-style black-helicopter territory.
What had him all worked up was Obama's pending trip to Copenhagen to help negotiate a global-warming treaty:
Norris: I really think he's going over there to try to create a one world order. And I think --
Cavuto: Well, what's your big worry?
Norris: My big worry is the fact is that we, as a nation, if we start having to be, ah, obligated to other countries. Like -- in this conference, they're going to try to take our money and send it to third-world countries, because we spend so much oil, and so other countries have suffered, and they want to give our money to these, uh, third world countries.
Neil, we have people here who are starving in our own country. I -- you know, my foundation, I have families who are making nine thousand dollars a year -- the kids that I'm teaching. Why aren't we trying to help the poverty in our own country?
Nevermind, of course, that we have this thing called to Aid to Families With Dependent Children and a host of other poverty-fighting programs -- aka "welfare" -- that work reasonably well in attacking poverty in the USA. Except that funding for these programs keeps getting cut by right-wing anti-tax nutcases who think like Chuck Norris.
No, what really is bothering Chuck is that looming New World Order. This is also why he doesn't believe in global warming: "I don't believe it for a second. I think it's a big con game that they're doing."
And if Obama indeed hands over our "sovereignty"?
Who knows what's going to happen. God forbid this happens in our country. Our country as we know it now will no longer exist, Neil, that's the whole thing right there.
A little later, he brought up health-care reform as a signal event in the New World Order takeover:
Norris: I'll tell you what, the thing that worries me the most is this health-care bill. And why I'm scared about it -- it's not about the health care. It's about the provisions that are in that bill.
One, is that if this thing passes, the government will have the right to come into our home and regulate how we raise our children. I found that in the bill.
Cavuto, to his credit, wasn't buying: "I don't believe that."
Give it a day or two. I bet Glenn Beck does.
From NOW on PBS--Power Struggle. More available here.
This is what I hate having to explain to my relatives and friends abroad in Europe about politics in the US. We know that global warming is a fact. We know that our actions, if they didn't cause global warming, definitely exacerbate it. We know that we must reduce our dependency on oil, for both ecological and political/strategic reasons. And yet, what we are able to do is hampered so predictably by the Republican party:
Here we go again. James Inhofe, the most prominent climate change denier in the United States Senate, has concocted a new and innovative strategy to thwart the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. To wit, he and his Republican colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee have worked up a plan to simply not show up for next week’s markup:
But Boxer cannot hold the markup unless at least two Republicans show up, and EPW ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) signaled that he has unanimous support among the panel’s minority members to boycott the session until they get more data on the legislation from U.S. EPA and the Congressional Budget Office.
Inhofe said he will wait for Boxer to file an official notice of the markup — expected today — before responding with his own declaration of the GOP’s markup strategy.
“As soon as we find out what her announcement is and what she wants to do, we’ll have our response,” Inhofe told E&E last night. “We’ll have our unanimous expression ready.”
Sadly, this is a continuation of the GOP’s longstanding strategy of delaying clean energy legislation:
- As Chairman Markey shepherded his American Clean Energy and Security Act through the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republicans employed multiple parliamentary tricks to — as Politico put it — “nitpick the bill into legislative oblivion.” Brian Beutler called these nefarious stall tactics, and noted that Democrats responded by hiring a speed reader.
- Last year during the debate over the Climate Security Act, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell demanded that the entire 491 page bill be read on the floor of the United States Senate. A strategy memo was leaked at the time detailing the Republican strategy for delaying the bill as much as humanly possible.
While this Republican obstructionism is not necessarily surprising, it is especially egregious this time. Here are a few things about this episode that struck me:
1. Despite the fact that Senator Inhofe has been working to orchestrate this obstruction for a week now, Republicans are pretending the effort is being led by the two moderate Republicans on the committee. Politico handled the stenography.
The Politco, acting as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party? Say it isn't so!
Can you imagine how much further we'd get in this country if we didn't have so many idiots in office?
(And some still think otherwise)
It's incredible that at this late date there are people still convinced the idea of Global Warming is the thing of hoaxes and myths. Even more incredible to think we had an administration so wrapped around the fingers of the Petroleum Industry that the EPA, an agency brought about for the protection of just plain folks, was gutted to the point of extinction because arrogance had the upper hand and propaganda still pollutes the discussion.
In 2004 BBC Radio 4 ran a series of documentaries on Global Warming where much of the fault was laid at the odoriferous feet of the Bush Administration and the arrogant denial anything could possibly be wrong. And anyone with the audacity to question was sent packing.
Jeremy Simons (former EPA chief under Clinton): “Often in the climate change debate new scientific studies emerge, and there was a new scientific study at the time that was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. It’s been very controversial. They wanted that study referenced and they wanted to take out language that had been approved by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences that said climate change was a real and established threat. They wanted to basically sow confusion into the debate on the science . . . there has definitely been a growing rift between the White House and EPA. EPA really is an agency in crisis right now. Because the White House has an agenda, they know what their environmental agenda is – it’s closely aligned with what Industry wants it to pursue, and that doesn’t often match up with what the sciences . . .EPA staff objectives are actually fairly straightforward; it’s to get good information out, and that’s been a conflict with the spin that the White House has wanted to put on environmental measures.”
And five years later . . .
Tomorrow is Blog Action Day: this year's topic is climate change. I always find it useful in "debates" over this issue to bring up the topic of "clean air for my children." Global Warming debaters don't know how to counter that one.
Open Thread below....
From Saturday Night Live Oct. 3, 2009.
Paul Krugman says that the main Republican strategy to fight climate change legislation will be to attack it as hurting the economy:
By 2050, when the emissions limit would be much tighter, the burden would rise to 1.2 percent of income. But the budget office also predicts that real G.D.P. will be about two-and-a-half times larger in 2050 than it is today, so that G.D.P. per person will rise by about 80 percent. The cost of climate protection would barely make a dent in that growth. And all of this, of course, ignores the benefits of limiting global warming.
So where do the apocalyptic warnings about the cost of climate-change policy come from?
Are the opponents of cap-and-trade relying on different studies that reach fundamentally different conclusions? No, not really. It’s true that last spring the Heritage Foundation put out a report claiming that Waxman-Markey would lead to huge job losses, but the study seems to have been so obviously absurd that I’ve hardly seen anyone cite it.
Instead, the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies.
Thus, last week Glenn Beck — who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the G.O.P. — informed his audience of a “buried” Obama administration study showing that Waxman-Markey would actually cost the average family $1,787 per year. Needless to say, no such study exists.
But we shouldn’t be too hard on Mr. Beck. Similar — and similarly false — claims about the cost of Waxman-Markey have been circulated by many supposed experts.
A year ago I would have been shocked by this behavior. But as we’ve already seen in the health care debate, the polarization of our political discourse has forced self-proclaimed “centrists” to choose sides — and many of them have apparently decided that partisan opposition to President Obama trumps any concerns about intellectual honesty.
So here’s the bottom line: The claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax. The truth about the economics of climate change is that it’s relatively easy being green.
While David Neiwert is on vacation this week, covering Beck unfortunately fell to me today and my team had this video waiting in my inbox. And as usual he was chock full of crazy only today he had on neocon extraordinaire John Bolton, the UN hater as his companion. Watching Beck and Bolton together makes one realize that our media seems to be dropping tabs of acid before they come on the air. And this was about as trippy as it gets. During their kaleidoscope adventures, Beck was whigging out because Hillary Clinton talked about India and hoped that they don't make the same mistakes when it comes to global warming. To Beckenstein, that means it's time to call her part of the Apology Tour. John Bolton was passing the Bill Kristol torch as Glenn Beck uttered this whimsical nonsense.
Bolton: I think this is the time to stand up. I think the president's program is in real trouble and I think once he starts losing as it looks like he will on health care, he'll lose on other issues.
Beck: I’m telling you this guy is dangerous. He’s never lost before. He won’t understand it. He won’t understand look how – he, uh, is like, who are you to question me? I mean, this guy is practically an imperial president now. When he starts to lose and people start to question him and push him back against the wall, he’s not gonna know how to react.
Bolton: But that makes me more optimistic...
These goofs are revealing in the hope that the president will fail at a critical time in our history. This encapsulates the republican/conservative/Beckenstein/Teabagger movement that began right out of the gate. It's saddening to see this unfold, but maybe if I drop a little window pain, I'll feel the same way.
Beck’s dire prediction is of course similar to that of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who said, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” Beck, whose show is quite popular, is feeding the sentiment of his right-wing base who are now urging each other to “to throw off and alter the abusive government by peacefully recalling and removing from office the President of the United States.”
I guess it's a speaker from the Citizens of Liberty or something...Another Global Warming denier. I couldn't write any dialogue for you from this clip. That's really asking way too much of me. Maybe she'll run for president too.
The Washington Independent: Long-awaited warrantless surveillance report finally released
Emptywheel: US government covered up war crimes committed by CIA's warlord
AlterNet: Hedge Fund would rather shut down a plant than pay it's workers a fair wage
Fired Up! Missouri: Roy Blunt says it would have been "best" if Medicare and Medicaid never existed. Then there's this idiot, and this braying jackass
alicublog: The airing of grievances
The Birmingham Free Press: How to argue with a Global Warming denier
America Honors Leaders -- Not Politicians:
In this picture provided by the environmental group Greenpeace, Greenpeace climbers rappel down the face of Mount Rushmore National Memorial in Keystone, S.D. on Wednesday, July 8, 2009 to unfurl a banner that challenges President Obama to show leadership on global warming. Obama is at the G8 meeting in Italy to discuss the global warming crisis with other world leaders. A federal prosecutor says a dozen people were taken into custody on Wednesday after the incident.
Open thread below...
The headline of the linked article is “House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill.” Obviously not happy with the AP headline, the Fox Nation writers, in order to put it in right wing terms the pitchfork gang can understand and appreciate, tweaked it thusly: “Treason? House Passes Direct Assault On Industrial Base.” It is accompanied by a photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The AP article is what real journalism is all about, as it describes what happened in the House of Representatives with no reference to “treason.” The Fox Nation headline is a subjective statement of pure right wing propaganda by those who haven’t read the constitution and is aimed at those who are constitutionally illiterate. But then, in Fox Nation, anyone who dares disagree with the solons of right wing dogma are traitors. Republican Rep Michele Bachman claims that Jesus has taken care of global warming, so why worry? BTW, Republican Representative John Shimkus said that "This is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I have ever experienced.” He didn’t accuse the other side of treason. But it’s ironic, don’t ya think, that the same folks who accused those of disagreeing with Bush administration of being traitors, are now those who are disagreeing with the Obama administration to the point of advocating secession.
I swear, these Murdoch minions will not be happy until there's a full-out civil war in this country.
I wish I'd been paying closer attention to this, because now I have a whole lot of questions that weren't there before I read Matt Taibbi's latest story for Rolling Stone: "How Goldman Sachs took over Washington by engineering every major market manipulation since the Great Depression."
But first, the "good" news:
WASHINGTON -- Landmark legislation to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions was approved by the House of Representatives in a close vote late Friday, securing a hard-fought victory for a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's agenda.
After months of negotiations, the Democratic-controlled House has narrowly passed sweeping legislation calling for the nation's first-ever limits on pollution linked to global warming. Stephen Power explains the bill's implications.
The 1,200 page bill—formally known as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act"—will reach into almost every corner of the U.S. economy. By putting a price on emissions of common gases, such as carbon dioxide, the bill would affect the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive or to heat their homes.
Talking about how very deeply Goldman Sachs is embedded in the investors that will profit from cap-and-trade, Taibbi says:
Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won't we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe - but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected.
"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedge-fund director who spoke out against oil-futures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."
Cap-and-trade is going to happen. [Ed. note - this was published yesterday.] Or, if it doesn't, something like it will. The moral is the same for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees - while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.
It's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely allow these people to get away with; there's a kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone through lately, when a people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the past few years. You can't really register the fact that you're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight, because like an amputee, you still sort of feel things that are no longer there.
But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework until the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch. It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay. And maybe we can't stop it, but we should at least know where it's all going.
RS hasn't put it online but really, I strongly recommend buying the issue to support this kind of journalism.
You can read some comments on the piece here, here and here.
Oh, and you can read a related Taibbi piece here.
Glenn Beck and his leadoff guest yesterday, Phil Kerpen of the corporate-front global-warming-denier outfit Americans for Prosperity (the same folks who brought you the Tea Parties, were not happy at all with the then-imminent passage in the House of a major component of President Obama's climate-change plan.
So they indulged in some sour watermelon:
Beck: You like watermelon?
Kerpen: I love watermelon.
Beck: I think this is a watermelon bill.
[Begins slicing open melon.]
Kerpsen: I think you're exactly right. This bill is green on the outside -- the thinnest green on the outside, and on the inside, it's deep Communist red.
And, you know, Gorbachev actually runs an environmental group now. I don't know if everyone knows that. But this bill has only the thin sheen of environmentalism. Greenpeace said it will do nothing to help pollution. Even the EPA says it might increase greenhouse gas emissions.
This is just an excuse for central planning, central control of our economy.
The spirit of Joe McCarthy and the John Birch Society lives on. Kind of like those bad old zombie movies.
The America's Future Now gathering in D.C. just wrapped up today. I haven't been able to post a lot about the panels and talks that went on over the past three days, but probably the most interesting speech I heard came from Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, talking about the energy bill working its way through Congress.
Adam Siegel at GetEnergySmartNow has a good post up about with excerpts:
If I’d been here a year ago, I would have talked to you about three things: The need to transform energy economy, create jobs, and tackle global warming. ... About the third, during the campaign, I spoke it about every single night. People asked me why, as it was 21st on people’s concerns. I responded: it should be first on everyone’s agenda and the only way it will be is if we talk about it.
... If I am going to simplify the issue, we have to quit taking geologic carbon and turning it into atmospheric carbon.
... In the past, people have described the Senate as the place where a good House bill goes to die. ... We need to change that. We need to reestablish the Senate as a place where an okay bill goes to get vastly improved.... There is the possibility that we will end up with a framework that is ineffective, that has offsets, that doesn’t have a firm cap. ... Or, we could end up with something that could really transform our use of energy. Obviously, we’re going to have to work real hard to get from the former to the latter.
The whole session was fascinating -- including the speech by Sierra Club president Carl Pope, who talked at length about how the federal government's fickle ways on energy have been killing our ability to create green jobs. (You can watch it all here.) The classic case of this involves the reality that even though wind turbine transformers require elements mined from American soil, China is the world's leading manufacturer of them.
And if you don't believe that "green energy" is going to be the key to restoring America's position as the world's leading economy, check out this report about the fact that investment in that sector is rising at a sharp rate:
