This is great news. The Obama administration is tightening national fuel standards, in line with the program California has been trying to enact since 2002.
Money quote:
"...inaction [on fuel standards] has been a factor in the current dire state in which General Motors and Chrysler find themselves. The Japanese automakers are far ahead in developing smaller, more efficient vehicles, although they, too, will have to adjust their product lines."
The article describes how California had applied for a waiver, as far back as 2002, to lax federal fuel standards, but industry and the Bush administration WOULD NOT LET THEM ENFORCE TIGHTER STANDARDS. Get that--industry, and their supposed allies in office, disallowed environmental measures in an attempt to protect industrial profits. And they ended up not only harming the environment, but crippling the US auto industry.
How tragically ironic! If the auto-makers hadn't insisted so vehemently that they be allowed to continue making gas-sucking behemoths, the Japanese wouldn't have run them out of business.
Which leads me to conclude that 1) The US automakers are retarded and/or 2) the actual "industry" opposing those regulations wasn't so much the automakers, but the oil companies. Probably, it's a little of both.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Catch Me if You Can?
I'm very upset and worried about this. Obama has hired the lawyer responsible for defending the worst polluters in the world as his "ENFORCER" of environmental regulations.
It is forcing me to question the post I wrote only yesterday deriding people who demand ideological purity from their President.
If I can, I would like to simultaneously defend myself against hypocrisy and define why this is so worrisome.
I am willing to accept compromise. Even on the environment, which I'm realizing is probably my number one issue. For example, Obama seems to have decided that cap-and-trade is the most politically feasible method of addressing climate change. Many argue that a carbon tax would be more effective. But less likely to pass. So, Obama wants cap-and-trade. I understand that.
This appears to be something very different. This appears to be what Reagan did--put people in charge of government agencies whose philosophy was that those agencies should cease to exist. It is not a compromise, it's abandonment. It's sabotage. It's not accepting the less-than-perfect, it is ensuring the frustration of the good.
At least, it appears that way. Perhaps, Obama is playing a "Catch Me if You Can" game. Get the thief to catch other thieves. She knows all their tricks, so she can stop them. I hope that is what happens. However, I fear that Obama is really just caving to industry. He has hired someone who is compromised, who knows that these big corporations, once Obama's terms are over, are ready again to shell out the big bucks for more protection. In other words, it's in this person's professional interest to remain on good terms with, to be nice with, the very corporations she's supposed to be regulating.
To put it more succinctly, she has a vested interest in doing her job poorly. She may have the purest of motives (which I highly doubt) but still, always, in the back of her mind will be the thought--if I really call these guys out on their environmental abuses, if I make them look bad, if I make them lose money, am I screwing my kids out of a bigger inheritance?
I don't want the environmental enforcer having those thoughts.
It is forcing me to question the post I wrote only yesterday deriding people who demand ideological purity from their President.
If I can, I would like to simultaneously defend myself against hypocrisy and define why this is so worrisome.
I am willing to accept compromise. Even on the environment, which I'm realizing is probably my number one issue. For example, Obama seems to have decided that cap-and-trade is the most politically feasible method of addressing climate change. Many argue that a carbon tax would be more effective. But less likely to pass. So, Obama wants cap-and-trade. I understand that.
This appears to be something very different. This appears to be what Reagan did--put people in charge of government agencies whose philosophy was that those agencies should cease to exist. It is not a compromise, it's abandonment. It's sabotage. It's not accepting the less-than-perfect, it is ensuring the frustration of the good.
At least, it appears that way. Perhaps, Obama is playing a "Catch Me if You Can" game. Get the thief to catch other thieves. She knows all their tricks, so she can stop them. I hope that is what happens. However, I fear that Obama is really just caving to industry. He has hired someone who is compromised, who knows that these big corporations, once Obama's terms are over, are ready again to shell out the big bucks for more protection. In other words, it's in this person's professional interest to remain on good terms with, to be nice with, the very corporations she's supposed to be regulating.
To put it more succinctly, she has a vested interest in doing her job poorly. She may have the purest of motives (which I highly doubt) but still, always, in the back of her mind will be the thought--if I really call these guys out on their environmental abuses, if I make them look bad, if I make them lose money, am I screwing my kids out of a bigger inheritance?
I don't want the environmental enforcer having those thoughts.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
What this guy said
Dissent of the day, from Sullivan:
"The prosecutions you are asking for would simply swallow the Obama presidency whole. It is the kind of energy draining, oxygen consuming drama that is the nightmare of every president. It would come to define his presidency in the same way the Hostage Crisis defined Carter’s and there is zero chance he will opt for this.
President Obama is making a realistic, cold, clear-eyed cost-benefit analysis. This is the choice: Does he fix the economy, fix healthcare, get a handle on the two wars he’s dealing with, or does he prosecute Bush era war crimes? He has chosen his agenda and is asking us to choose that to."
I would add, energy and climate change. I trust/hope that Obama truly understands the importance of that issue.
"The prosecutions you are asking for would simply swallow the Obama presidency whole. It is the kind of energy draining, oxygen consuming drama that is the nightmare of every president. It would come to define his presidency in the same way the Hostage Crisis defined Carter’s and there is zero chance he will opt for this.
President Obama is making a realistic, cold, clear-eyed cost-benefit analysis. This is the choice: Does he fix the economy, fix healthcare, get a handle on the two wars he’s dealing with, or does he prosecute Bush era war crimes? He has chosen his agenda and is asking us to choose that to."
I would add, energy and climate change. I trust/hope that Obama truly understands the importance of that issue.
"Obama is a war criminal."
That statement comes from the comments section of Glenn Greenwald's blog/column for Salon about Obama's decision to suppress photos of torture and detainee abuse.
I think it's safe to say that the far left is officially out of love with Obama. That didn't take long. And it's not just about these photos. There's more. The bailouts, for example, struck many lefties as just more corporate prostitution. There's the denial of rights to detainees at Bagram. (See Glenn Greenwald again.) There's the president's failure to do anything about gay rights, including silence when another valuable Arab linguist was fired for being gay. Obama has yet to approach the issue of Don't ask don't tell. Andrew Sullivan, though attempting to be patient about this issue (Obama's only been in office since January, after all) calls it the "fierce urgency of whenever."
But, it seems the decision to suppress these photos is the drop that burst the dam. This is just too much. This makes Obama "just as bad" as Bush and Cheney and, yes, a "war criminal."
Now, hold on. I'm of two, actually several, minds about this. On the one hand, I'm glad to see the lefty blogosphere acting as a valuable critic of Obama's presidency. That must continue to take place. On the other hand--this makes him a war criminal? You've lost all faith in him whatsoever? I get the feeling some people are simply more comfortable distrusting the government. Really, it was weird liking the president. It felt good to be out of power, with Darth Vader ruining the country. All our snark, all our outrage, all our moral clarity was so pure and so cleansing. Remember those days, sitting around the common room in the dorm, understanding so clearly how the world should really be run?
Now, with Obama in office, liberals are faced with two choices: Deal with the inevitable compromises of actually wielding power--or disown the whole deal, call him a war criminal, declare independent, take no responsibility for the man you voted into office and the party you supported.
That's just cowardly and immature. To borrow one of Obama's favorite (and increasingly irritating) phrases--Let me be clear: I support what Glenn Greenwald is doing, holding Obama accountable for his promises regarding state secrecy and torture--and, moreover, holding public officials in general accountable for doing what is morally right. "Dealing with the reality of power" does not mean, to me, becoming sheep. It means continuing to push the president to do what is right. I think the "war criminal" comments, however, are silly.
Look, Obama has banned the use of water boarding and other techniques, labeling them torture. To this bit of, you know, factual information, one of the commenters responded, "Do you really believe that? Just because your government says so?" Oh, give me a fucking break. This is just conspiracy theorizing at its worst. Until there is the smallest shred of evidence that Obama is continuing the torture of detainees, I will believe that, as per his executive order, the procedures have been banned. To accuse someone of committing a crime, you need, what's it called?--evidence. The claim that "the government always lies, so they're lying now, so they're obviously doing the worst things I can imagine" carries no intellectual weight whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned.
Furthermore, Obama released the torture memos. In other words, the information about what was done is out there. Graphic representation is not. So, he is not, at least not entirely, covering up what Bush and Cheney did.
But, as to the release of those photos. Why didn't he do it? (Clearly, as you can see, I am reserving judgment. I am ready to entertain, at least, the notion that Obama based this decision on honorable motives. That's my bias, just so you know.)
I can think of two likely reasons:
1) His stated explanation, that the photos will inflame anti-American violence in the Middle East. Greenwald, and others, object that this makes no sense. The information is already out there that we tortured, as I said. Suppressing photographic evidence only makes it seem that we did far worse. (And maybe we did.) And, they say, anti-Americanism has already been inflamed by what was done. Furthermore, this is the same bankrupt argument that Republicans used to oppose release of the memos.
I think it's not as simple as that. Textual documentation and graphic photography are two very different types of information. The first can be used to make a sophisticated legal indictment and to, historically, document what was done. The second can cause intense emotional reaction. Remember the violence that attended that Dutch cartoon of Mohammed? So, Obama's argument does hold some water.
However, I don't buy it. As Greenwald rightly points out, the public outrage that ultimately led to the banning of these methods would likely not have occurred without the photographic evidence of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. No one wants increased violence against the soldiers, but suppressing evidence is not excusable. He should have released the photos. Their release could be handled so as to minimize adverse reactions--e.g., with accompanying presidential statements condemning the procedures.
2) It's political. It's unfortunate but true: torture and torture prosecution have become political issues. Obama knew that they would. He has to play politics with this, as distasteful as that might be, because those who oppose torture investigations WILL make it political. (See Cheney, Dick.) So, suppressing the photos may be a political stunt, a little concession to the right wing. In which case, I still don't buy it. It's such a small gesture anyway.
However, on the larger point, of the politics of torture evidence and investigations, liberals are faced with another tough choice. Obama, I think rightly, predicts that if he goes after Bush officials now for war crimes, he will lose every last penny of his "political capital." He will spend it all, and more, going after the bastards that preceded him. It will prove incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to push through universal health care, energy reform, economic recovery measures or the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Those things won't happen. They just won't. The morally uncompromising among us (Andrew Sullivan, for one) say that it doesn't matter. We must do what is right, and what the law demands, regardless of its effects on policy.
Perhaps this makes me a bad person, a realpolitik douchebag, a 'war criminal,' but I would rather save human civilization from destroying itself with CO2 than put Bush and Cheney behind bars. I would rather get everyone in the country on health care and back to work than get vengeance on Bush-era assholes. I would rather get out of Iraq without it imploding than punish the people who put us there.
This is tough. But, that is what happens when you, or your party, is actually in power. Reality intrudes upon the purity of your ideals.
That being said, I don't, actually, think it's necessarily such a stark decision. We could, potentially, do both. But, here's the thing: if Obama goes full bore into torture investigations now, those other things, as I said, don't happen, and won't ever happen. A political war the likes of which we have not seen, not even in Clinton's years, would erupt over the prosecution for war crimes by a new president of his predecessors.
But...Obama can accomplish those big goals this year, or soon thereafter. He really can. And, the while, set the groundwork for truth commissions, investigations, or, at least, the judgment of history. A truth commission is a step he could take now, without going full bore after the previous president. It might be a good step.
Do I think this will happen? To be honest, no. There will likely always be "more important" goals "looking forward" than going after Bush. But, if the evidence continues to come out, and the time away from Bush gets long enough, it may be possible to bring the authors of torture to justice. I don't know if Obama will do it, or if he plans to do it, but I just don't think we can stand to make the sacrifices necessary to do it now.
I am, of course, open to other opinions (if anyone is reading this).
I think it's safe to say that the far left is officially out of love with Obama. That didn't take long. And it's not just about these photos. There's more. The bailouts, for example, struck many lefties as just more corporate prostitution. There's the denial of rights to detainees at Bagram. (See Glenn Greenwald again.) There's the president's failure to do anything about gay rights, including silence when another valuable Arab linguist was fired for being gay. Obama has yet to approach the issue of Don't ask don't tell. Andrew Sullivan, though attempting to be patient about this issue (Obama's only been in office since January, after all) calls it the "fierce urgency of whenever."
But, it seems the decision to suppress these photos is the drop that burst the dam. This is just too much. This makes Obama "just as bad" as Bush and Cheney and, yes, a "war criminal."
Now, hold on. I'm of two, actually several, minds about this. On the one hand, I'm glad to see the lefty blogosphere acting as a valuable critic of Obama's presidency. That must continue to take place. On the other hand--this makes him a war criminal? You've lost all faith in him whatsoever? I get the feeling some people are simply more comfortable distrusting the government. Really, it was weird liking the president. It felt good to be out of power, with Darth Vader ruining the country. All our snark, all our outrage, all our moral clarity was so pure and so cleansing. Remember those days, sitting around the common room in the dorm, understanding so clearly how the world should really be run?
Now, with Obama in office, liberals are faced with two choices: Deal with the inevitable compromises of actually wielding power--or disown the whole deal, call him a war criminal, declare independent, take no responsibility for the man you voted into office and the party you supported.
That's just cowardly and immature. To borrow one of Obama's favorite (and increasingly irritating) phrases--Let me be clear: I support what Glenn Greenwald is doing, holding Obama accountable for his promises regarding state secrecy and torture--and, moreover, holding public officials in general accountable for doing what is morally right. "Dealing with the reality of power" does not mean, to me, becoming sheep. It means continuing to push the president to do what is right. I think the "war criminal" comments, however, are silly.
Look, Obama has banned the use of water boarding and other techniques, labeling them torture. To this bit of, you know, factual information, one of the commenters responded, "Do you really believe that? Just because your government says so?" Oh, give me a fucking break. This is just conspiracy theorizing at its worst. Until there is the smallest shred of evidence that Obama is continuing the torture of detainees, I will believe that, as per his executive order, the procedures have been banned. To accuse someone of committing a crime, you need, what's it called?--evidence. The claim that "the government always lies, so they're lying now, so they're obviously doing the worst things I can imagine" carries no intellectual weight whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned.
Furthermore, Obama released the torture memos. In other words, the information about what was done is out there. Graphic representation is not. So, he is not, at least not entirely, covering up what Bush and Cheney did.
But, as to the release of those photos. Why didn't he do it? (Clearly, as you can see, I am reserving judgment. I am ready to entertain, at least, the notion that Obama based this decision on honorable motives. That's my bias, just so you know.)
I can think of two likely reasons:
1) His stated explanation, that the photos will inflame anti-American violence in the Middle East. Greenwald, and others, object that this makes no sense. The information is already out there that we tortured, as I said. Suppressing photographic evidence only makes it seem that we did far worse. (And maybe we did.) And, they say, anti-Americanism has already been inflamed by what was done. Furthermore, this is the same bankrupt argument that Republicans used to oppose release of the memos.
I think it's not as simple as that. Textual documentation and graphic photography are two very different types of information. The first can be used to make a sophisticated legal indictment and to, historically, document what was done. The second can cause intense emotional reaction. Remember the violence that attended that Dutch cartoon of Mohammed? So, Obama's argument does hold some water.
However, I don't buy it. As Greenwald rightly points out, the public outrage that ultimately led to the banning of these methods would likely not have occurred without the photographic evidence of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. No one wants increased violence against the soldiers, but suppressing evidence is not excusable. He should have released the photos. Their release could be handled so as to minimize adverse reactions--e.g., with accompanying presidential statements condemning the procedures.
2) It's political. It's unfortunate but true: torture and torture prosecution have become political issues. Obama knew that they would. He has to play politics with this, as distasteful as that might be, because those who oppose torture investigations WILL make it political. (See Cheney, Dick.) So, suppressing the photos may be a political stunt, a little concession to the right wing. In which case, I still don't buy it. It's such a small gesture anyway.
However, on the larger point, of the politics of torture evidence and investigations, liberals are faced with another tough choice. Obama, I think rightly, predicts that if he goes after Bush officials now for war crimes, he will lose every last penny of his "political capital." He will spend it all, and more, going after the bastards that preceded him. It will prove incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to push through universal health care, energy reform, economic recovery measures or the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Those things won't happen. They just won't. The morally uncompromising among us (Andrew Sullivan, for one) say that it doesn't matter. We must do what is right, and what the law demands, regardless of its effects on policy.
Perhaps this makes me a bad person, a realpolitik douchebag, a 'war criminal,' but I would rather save human civilization from destroying itself with CO2 than put Bush and Cheney behind bars. I would rather get everyone in the country on health care and back to work than get vengeance on Bush-era assholes. I would rather get out of Iraq without it imploding than punish the people who put us there.
This is tough. But, that is what happens when you, or your party, is actually in power. Reality intrudes upon the purity of your ideals.
That being said, I don't, actually, think it's necessarily such a stark decision. We could, potentially, do both. But, here's the thing: if Obama goes full bore into torture investigations now, those other things, as I said, don't happen, and won't ever happen. A political war the likes of which we have not seen, not even in Clinton's years, would erupt over the prosecution for war crimes by a new president of his predecessors.
But...Obama can accomplish those big goals this year, or soon thereafter. He really can. And, the while, set the groundwork for truth commissions, investigations, or, at least, the judgment of history. A truth commission is a step he could take now, without going full bore after the previous president. It might be a good step.
Do I think this will happen? To be honest, no. There will likely always be "more important" goals "looking forward" than going after Bush. But, if the evidence continues to come out, and the time away from Bush gets long enough, it may be possible to bring the authors of torture to justice. I don't know if Obama will do it, or if he plans to do it, but I just don't think we can stand to make the sacrifices necessary to do it now.
I am, of course, open to other opinions (if anyone is reading this).
Friday, May 1, 2009
60?
So, Arlen Specter is now a Democrat. (I know, this is old news by now, but finals torpedoed my recent vow to blog more regularly. As did laziness.)
Anywhoo...I see Democrats and progressives hooting about getting to the filibuster-retardant 60. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but...does this really change anything? I mean, Specter was a moderate Republican who could be expected to vote with the Democrats sometimes. Thus, they would make it to 60 sometimes. Now, he is a moderate Democrat who will likely vote with the Republicans a lot of the time. So, the Democrats will make it to 60 sometimes. Am I missing something here?
I don't mean this to be the standard "there's no difference between the two parties/kick all the bums out" argument. I mostly don't subscribe to that theory and find it pretty facile. But, in this case, I think people are getting caught up in labels. Now he's a Democrat, so Democrats have 60 votes! I just don't see his voting patterns changing much--which, yes, does give some support to the Naderite no-diff-b/t-Dem-Rep view. The point, however, is that he's a moderate. And for moderates, party really is just a convenience thing, a support system. A meaningless label. In the broad view, the two parties do stand for different things, and you can definitely see that in their respective bases. This is why Specter got pushed out of the GOP--his party's base got too extreme. Now he's just a moderate with a different colored tie.
Where I do think this matters is in the comment I just made about the Republican base. They're getting more and more distant from where independent and moderate voters are--i.e., the majority of the country. This is amazing to me. Can the country's political make-up change that quickly? I remember not 3 years ago when it was still political death to be called a liberal, when Republicans could jam through any measures they wanted. Has it really all changed so much? Perhaps I've now been alive long enough to see a political shift--from Reaganism to (bestill my heart!) Obamaism? If that's the case, the next shift won't be for a while. Interesting times. And Specter's defection is just a sign of them--but, really, let's all stop obsessing over 60.
Anywhoo...I see Democrats and progressives hooting about getting to the filibuster-retardant 60. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but...does this really change anything? I mean, Specter was a moderate Republican who could be expected to vote with the Democrats sometimes. Thus, they would make it to 60 sometimes. Now, he is a moderate Democrat who will likely vote with the Republicans a lot of the time. So, the Democrats will make it to 60 sometimes. Am I missing something here?
I don't mean this to be the standard "there's no difference between the two parties/kick all the bums out" argument. I mostly don't subscribe to that theory and find it pretty facile. But, in this case, I think people are getting caught up in labels. Now he's a Democrat, so Democrats have 60 votes! I just don't see his voting patterns changing much--which, yes, does give some support to the Naderite no-diff-b/t-Dem-Rep view. The point, however, is that he's a moderate. And for moderates, party really is just a convenience thing, a support system. A meaningless label. In the broad view, the two parties do stand for different things, and you can definitely see that in their respective bases. This is why Specter got pushed out of the GOP--his party's base got too extreme. Now he's just a moderate with a different colored tie.
Where I do think this matters is in the comment I just made about the Republican base. They're getting more and more distant from where independent and moderate voters are--i.e., the majority of the country. This is amazing to me. Can the country's political make-up change that quickly? I remember not 3 years ago when it was still political death to be called a liberal, when Republicans could jam through any measures they wanted. Has it really all changed so much? Perhaps I've now been alive long enough to see a political shift--from Reaganism to (bestill my heart!) Obamaism? If that's the case, the next shift won't be for a while. Interesting times. And Specter's defection is just a sign of them--but, really, let's all stop obsessing over 60.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)