The Baltimore Sun reports that U. S. Customs officials are routinely seizing 5-10% of the laptops brought back into the country by U. S. citizens returning home after international travel. There's no warrant or reasonable suspicion required, just a program to randomly expropriate laptops and keep them for 2 weeks or longer for "random inspection of electronic media." The "program," in effect for the last few years, is also being applied to digital cameras, cell phones and PDAs.
"If you asked [U.S. residents] whether the government has a right to open their laptops, read their documents and e-mails, look at their photographs, and examine the Web sites they have visited, all without any suspicion of wrongdoing, I think those same Americans would say that the government has absolutely no right to do that," said Feingold, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. "And if you asked him whether that actually happens, they would say, 'not in the United States of America.'"
Can you believe that? The government apparently thinks it has the legal right to search your most private information without any probable cause? I know our civil liberties and Constitutional rights have gone down the shitter over the last 8 years, but this is so blatantly unconstitutional that I would have thought it impossible in the United States. But apparently not. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the original Bill of Rights, clearly states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You couldn't make that any clearer without the drafters putting the word "laptop" directly in the text. The Constitution is unambiguous, that the security against unreasonable searches (without probable cause and a warrant) of personal papers and effects ("laptop") shall not be violated. And yet they get away with it, being able to examine all of your documents, pictures, videos, emails, programs, web history, phone numbers, recent call history, everything, without any pretense of probable cause, and without a warrant of any kind. It is appalling. Worse yet, they can hold them for weeks (this would be the "unreasonable seizure" part), depriving you of your personal belongings, which you almost certainly need for business or personal use and would be extremely inconvenienced (or even fired) by having the government arbitrarily confiscate them for a couple weeks while they snoop through your personal life and most likely log it all into some giant domestic intelligence database. And god forbid they find a blog saved on your computer that is critical of the government, or anything they could even pretend was evidence of terrorism, then your ass it theirs. Don't believe it? People have been rotting at Guantanamo Bay and blacksites all over the planet for years on less evidence than an angry blog post.
I hope Feingold does something about this, as he is one of the few members of Congress that can truly be counted on to protect the Constitution. Please contact his office and urge him to do something about this, and contact your members of Congress as well. Such egregious violations of the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand, and unless we create a buzz about it, nothing will change.
Earlier this month the Discovery Channel launched a new called called Planet Green, which is the first cable channel devoted solely to environmental issues. I think it is a great idea, and I find myself unable to turn it off. They have a lot of cool stuff, especially if you are into remodeling, and I'm assuming that as they take off they will add even better shows and specials and all that. I'd like to see them focus on environmental issues around the planet, to really highlight the problems and get people motivated to get involved.
Anyway, I encourage everyone to check it out, go to their website and you'll be able to find the channel it is on, in addition to other cool things.
Pretty crazy, just take it from the Republicans who know him best, like Arizona Republican state committee chairman Bob Haney, who had this to say about McCain:
The guy has no core, his only principle is winning the presidency. He likes to call his campaign the 'straight talk express.' Well, down here we call it the 'forked tongue express.'
In response McCain went out of his way to try to ruin Haney's career, which failed. I think Haney has it right here:
McCain's botched revenge has solidified his reputation in Arizona's Republican circles as a divisive, untrustworthy and even dangerous figure. Haney hopes the general public meets this side of McCain before his penchant for angry reprisals is invested with the powers of the presidency. "This just shows that McCain is mentally unstable and out of control and vindictive," Haney told me. "If he is determined to go through that much trouble to attack a district committee chairman, what does that say about his ability to handle real political problems?"
Yes, it is time the media and Americans wake up to who McCain really is, because the last thing we need is this loose cannon calling the shots in Washington, and going after political opponents like Nixon on a bad day.
November 4th is going to be a beautiful day. The Republicans lost big in 2006. They lost 30 seats in the House, 6 seats in the Senate, and 6 governorships. For the first time in US history no Republican captured any House, Senate or Gubernatorial seat previously held by a Democrat. And everyone at the time figured this was the peak, and the goal was just to keep those seats in 2008. Yet this year the wave is continuing, possibly even picking up speed. The Republicans have lowered the bar to the point where they are hoping they don't lose 8 seats, thus giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate (so they can no longer grind everything to a halt by record-breaking use of filibusters). In this election the Republicans are defending 23 Senate seats, the Democrats are only defending 12, and pretty much all of those are safe, which is more than can be said for the Republican side. Republicans could also potentially lose 30 or more house seats this time around as well.
Karen Hanretty, communications director for the NRCC, was blunt about their upcoming asskicking:
This is a challenging environment. Any Republican running for office has to run basically on an independent platform, localize the race and not take anything for granted. There are no safe Republican seats in this election.
Basically, if you want to save your skin as a Republican, you have to pretend you aren't a Republican. That's how tarnished the reputation of the Republicans is now, after 8 years of miserable failures, basically screwing up everything nationally and globally that they could get their hands on. The only thing that has gotten "better" in the last 8 years is corporate profit and the bank accounts of the rich. I honestly can't think of a single other thing that has improved, and I wouldn't called making the rich richer an improvement.
You can tell a lot about a society by its taxes, and how it allocates money. Our society throws an incredible amount of money into sustaining our ability to kill people, while putting very little into education.
Our society also used to have a much more progressive tax code, yet the tax burden has shifted from the rich to the middle and lower classes over the last couple decades. At the end of World War II the top tax bracket was 94%. Then from 1964 until Reagan took office the rate was in the 70-80% range. Then Reagan came into office, bringing with him the new Republican philosophy of helping the rich and screwing the rest. In 1982 the top tax bracket was cut to 50%. In 1987 it was 38.5%. In 1988 it was cut again to 28%. Today it is at 35%. Over the years corporate taxes have been cut as well, to say nothing of the countless loopholes that let corporations evade the vast majority of their taxes. Taxes are about giving back to society, they are about the common good. When we cut taxes for the rich, we aren't just saying we think the rich aren't rich enough, we are saying that the rich being richer is more important than society having that money to invest in education, or health care, or alleviating poverty, or program that money had supported before. The modern Republican Party is about three things, helping the rich get richer, leaving the poor to fight for survival against the market, and cutting government revenue to the point where the government can't function properly. They achieve most of this through taxation, and the rest they achieve through stuffing the only part of government they care about, the part that kills people, with as much money as possible (which then gets transferred to corporations like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin, to make them and their CEOs/shareholders wealthier--do you see a pattern here?).
You can also tell a lot about a politician by their priorities.
If you’re a CEO of one of America’s largest corporations and have enjoyed the Presidency of George W. Bush, a contribution to the McCain campaign is looking like a pretty good investment.
A new report from the Center For American Progress Action Fund finds that a key piece of John McCain’s tax plan — cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% — would cut taxes by almost $45 billion every year for America’s 200 largest corporations as identified by Fortune Magazine.
Eight companies — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Bank ƒƒof America Corp., AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Microsoft Corp. — would each receive over $1 billion a year.
The following table shows the tax savings to America’s five largest firms. See a full list of all 200 companies and their savings under McCainhere:
A recent analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund found that John McCain’s campaign has received $5.6 million from the PACs and executives of the Fortune 200.
How exactly does McCain intend to fool Americans into believing that he isn't planning 4-8 more years of Bush's failed greedy conservative policies? You also have to realize what this means for our country. We have a record budget deficit, we waste over $400 billion on paying interest on our national debt every single year, and McCain wants to take more money from the government and give it to rich corporations and their rich CEOs. And which public programs are going to be cut because of McCain's $45 billion corporate tax gift? Is it going to be Head Start? Medicare? Investment in alternative energy? All of the above? McCain also voted against raising the minimum wage, and a bill that would have increased educational benefits for veterans. McCain opposed health care for children because he said it cost too much ($35 billion over 5 years, or just about 15% of his tax cut to the rich). Now what does that say about John McCain's priorities? We have enough money for a $45 billion dollar a year tax cut for the richest corporations, yet we can't spare 15% of that for uninsured children to get health care. It is disgusting. But that is John McCain, and that is Bush, and that is the Republican Party.
It's all about priorities.
And clearly McCain doesn't care about the national debt or programs that help millions of people, especially those who weren't born with a whole dining set of silver spoons in their mouthes. He is just like Bush. All his talk to the contrary is nothing but more lying to voters, also just like Bush.
I'm happy to tell you that we probably (probably? does he not know?) agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That's a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.
Yes, a bill he actively spoke out against. How shameless.
Uh-oh, something John McCain's Republican base not take too kindly too. Apparently McCain met secretly with the gay Republican group "Log Cabin Republicans" to get their support. Something tells me that the Republicans who have been sold on the hating-homosexuals wedge issue for all of these years won't like that McCain is pandering to them now.
What I don't understand is how you could be gay, and Republican. Isn't that like being black in the KKK? How could you be part of a national party that has repeatedly embraced prejudice against your group, and has made depriving you of rights a national priority (at least around election time)? They compare homosexuality to bestiality, and yet you still support them? It is mind-boggling. You didn't see African Americans supporting Jim Crow.
And it isn't like you could ignore that major point of disagreement because their other policies are better, because in addition to their homophobia they support policies that have consistently failed, miserably.
Anyway, it will be interesting how the Republican base will react if they get wind of this.
So here's an interesting theory I just came up with. You remember how McCain campaign advisor and superlobbyist Charlie Blackrecently said that another terrorist attack, like the one on 9/11, would be a "big advantage" for McCain? Well McCain has also made a similar comment right before the 2004 election about a tape from Osama bin Laden that had just been released:
But as McCain greets two breakfast-eating business partners, one from Stamford and the other from Bridgeport, the topic turns to the presidential race. The two men tell the senator they support President George W. Bush, and to that end, McCain says, "(Osama) Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost. Amazing, huh?"....
The two men, who requested anonymity, nod their heads in agreement. Later, while riding with Shays on an RV to a rally at the Stamford Government Center, McCain further explains, "(The video) is helpful to President Bush because it puts the focus on the war on terrorism."
(Read: It makes people afraid, and Republicans benefit when people are afraid)
Alright, so it is pretty obvious that Republicans believe terrorist attacks and threats, and anything that can scare Americans into voting against their own self-interest benefit Republicans. One could say they welcome such events, from the perspective of political strategizing. Do they welcome them enough to "accidentally" let a terrorist attack "slip" right before an election when it looks like their party is heading for their second landslide defeat in a row? Perhaps. Personally, I think you would have to have been living under a rock for the last 8 years to dismiss the possibility outright.
But here is something else I thought up, in light of this 2004 quote from McCain, what if they don't want to catch bin Laden? Does it serve the Republican interest to have him always lurking in the periphery of the voters' consciousness? Does he play the role of Emmanuel Goldstein of Orwell's 1984, the omnipresent evil, the target of the Three Minute Hate, the ready propaganda tool to overwhelm citizens with fear? We know the Republicans created this idea of the War on Terror, the war without bounds, without objectives, without an end, an infinite war against a tactic, an emotion, so that they can perpetually exploit this fear of terror to justify extraordinary violations of civil liberties, and an extraordinary expansion of the military-industrial complex which pumps the likes of Halliburton and DynCorp with floods of taxpayer money for their own profits.
But if we actually caught or killed bin Laden, wouldn't that make it much harder to keep the public fearful of the omnipresent War on Terror? It seems to me that politically, capturing bin Laden would be the worst thing for the Republicans, which may explain why they haven't done it in the 7 years since he killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Or it could just be appalling incompetence, as they clearly have more than enough of that to go around. It could be that they really just can't hunt down a single person despite the most powerful military and most advanced intelligence service in the history of the world, and it could be that needlessly dumping resources into Iraq, which had nothing to do with the War on Terror, contributed to our failure to ever capture our public enemy number one.
Or maybe they just want you to be afraid.
Maybe they want to play political games with American lives, so they keep the terrorist mastermind alive and well so he can do to Americans what he does best: terrorize.
Oxfam has released a report which backs up my longstanding criticism of biofuels as the false deus ex machina of the alternative energy debate. Its research has found that the growth of biofuels has had profound impacts on the price of food (I'm still not sure how people didn't see that coming from miles away), which has plunged more than 30 million people around the world into poverty. Oxfam also states that biofuels will do nothing to combat climate change, no doubt due to its small scale, changing land use patterns and the large amounts of petroleum required as inputs for crop cultivation.
Currently the European Union has a target of making 10% of all transportation run on renewable resources by 2020. Oxfam is now urging the EU to scrap that target.
Oxfam is of course absolutely right, biofuels are clearly the wrong direction in alternative energy. We need to drastically change how we consume energy. We need cars that use very little, if any, petrol or ethanol. We need to greatly increase our reliance on public transportation and bikes/scooters. We need to start getting a large portion of our energy from solar and wind power. We need to think local. We need to stop shipping food from one side of the world to the other when we could grow most of the same food nearby. We need to conserve energy at the household level. We need to equip our houses with solar panels and other systems to make them more, or completely, self sufficient. We need big changes, but driving up the price of food by using it as gas to fuel our cars is not the solution, and it will just lead to bigger problems. We are already seeing these big problems manifest, and we have barely begun to reach for our target development of biofuels. If we don't wake up and realize that we are making a huge mistake we are going to create a global crisis. We need our leaders to start thinking ahead. We need our leaders to think big. We need our leaders to lead us into a fundamentally different economy, a green economy.
And for chrissake people, buy some goddamn canvas bags to use for groceries instead of wasting plastic bags that will never decompose! (You can also get great canvas bags from Whole Foods) We have to start taking responsibility for the problem. This is a national problem, a global problem, and a grassroots problem, and it will take solutions on all levels to save us from ourselves.
Every year, Americans throw away some 100 billion plastic bags--the equivalent to dumping nearly 12 million barrels of oil.
James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
[...]
"When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."
[...]
"The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."
It is shocking how many problems in the world can be traced directly back to corporate greed. The war in Iraq was in large part a direct result of corporate greed. Skyrocketing cancer rates are almost certainly a direct result of corporate greed (filling our food, environment, bodies full of toxic chemicals free from regulation). The tainted food and toys, corporate greed (and again, corporations fighting against government regulation, with Republican help). Our broken health care system? Corporate greed. The crippling poverty in the third world, and the billion people in the world who are slowly (or quickly) starving to death, greed greed greed. Do you think there isn't enough food in the world? There is enough food in the world for every person on the planet to eat over 2,700 calories per day, that is enough for everyone in the world to be overweight. And yet we have a large percentage of the world starving. Greed, and in large part corporations are responsible when you really look at the way food is distributed globally. And virtually every single environmental problem on the planet can be traced back to corporate greed--deforestation, pollution, waste, global warming, all of it. And yes, just like tobacco companies knowingly made a ton of money while slowly killing millions with products they knew were dangerous and addictive, corporations like Exxon are complicit, criminally negligent, responsible for global warming denial and for stonewalling every single attempt to combat global warming. When big species like polar bears go extinct because their habitat has been destroyed, it will be the oil companies and climate change deniers (including the politicians who fought against the solutions) who will bear responsibility. When sea levels rise and the billions of people in the world who live in coastal areas are displaced and disease and overcrowding cause a global crisis, it will be these people and their greed that let it happen. When more Katrina-like hurricanes and unprecedented extreme flooding and droughts occur due to the changes global warming produces in our weather, it will be the corporations who profited off the death and destruction.
So hell yes, these people are criminals. If stealing a car is a felony, I'd say covering up and exacerbating climate change for decades all for corporate profit is a crime to say the least. Yes, it is a crime against humanity. Sure, it isn't as directly evil as what Hitler, Stalin, Suharto or Bush have done, and it effects our felt much more subtly, but the end result is still death, the end result it still destruction, poverty, pain and ruined lives. And the motivation is greed, these CEO's and lobbyists knowingly advocating against critical changes that would reverse global warming and spare us all of its grave impacts, speeding us toward the point of no return, all to pad their pockets with cash they don't even need.
That's criminal. That's theft of lives. That's a silent slaughter. They shouldn't be allowed to do this for decades and then retire comfortably with their millions keeping them safe and happy while billions upon billions of less-fortunate people around the world suffer for their greed.
Update: Check this out for more of Hansen's take on the immediate necessity of action to combat global warming.
Here is an article about the media's sick love affair with John McCain, the love affair that causes them to look the other way while he flip-flops, pushes extreme right-wing policies, lies, and gets the facts wrong, again and again:
On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.
Alright, now let me do a little prefacing here first. First, the article starts off with a lie, "On national security McCain wins." This is no doubt in here because Fortune is a conservative, pro-business publication. Does John McCain really win on national security? Does one of the Iraq war's biggest supporters win on national security? Given that the Iraq war has stretched our military to its breaking point, fueled anti-American sentiment around the world, no doubt greatly increasing terrorist recruitment and anti-American fanaticism in the Middle East, took our focus off the real terrorists like Osama bin Laden whom we've failed to find 7 years after 9/11, enabled al-Qaeda to build up even stronger than its pre-9/11 levels, and made Americans less safe all around (according to every intelligence agency including the CIA), I really wouldn't say that McCain "wins" on national security. McCain simply wants to continue the same failed policies of Bush that have made America less safe and more hated. No, on national security McCain most definitely loses.
Alright, now the bad part. Charlie Black, someone who would essentially be the Karl Rove of a McCain administration (that is if McCain didn't tap Karl himself, which he probably would), said that he thinks another terrorist attack on the United States, like the one on September 11th, would be a "big advantage" to McCain's campaign. What is worrisome, beyond that he would make political calculations like that, is that Republicans actually think another terrorist attack would help McCain beat Obama.
And then you have the recent Newsweek poll that shows Obama with a strong 15% lead over McCain nationally, and all of the electoral calculations showing Obama with a clear path to victory and McCain with a huge uphill battle. And then you have this running through their heads. Yes, they need a miracle. Yes, they need a deus ex machina to win this election and keep their greedy grip on power for at least another four years. Yes, a terrorist attack may be such an event, and probably the only event, that could give McCain better odds of winning on November 4th.
Now the scary part: Who is in charge of keeping a terrorist attack from happening now? George W. Bush. The same George W. Bush who ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks before 9/11, and literally vacationed while he was letting Osama bin Laden strike.
Now imagine its October, McCain is still down in the polls by 15% or more, you can picture the media grudgingly writing his political obituary, and all looks grim for the GOP. Then Bush gets another one of those pesky intelligence warnings about an impending terrorist attack and Cheney/Rove/McCain/Black or someone else whispers in his ear "George, just look the other way", and suddenly another one slips through his fingers, and McCain gets his miracle. The Republicans spring into action with their fearmongering and attacks on Obama, they ramp up the jingo machine and drape themselves in the flag and pray that their poll numbers go shooting up just like last time they exploited a terrorist even for their political gain. Maybe it would boost McCain to a win, maybe it wouldn't, its hard to say, but the scary part is, the Republicans might believe it will. Would you seriously put it past them? Seriously.
This is what worried me about the recent FISA battle. FISA is a perfect tool to use in such a shadow plan to paint the Democrats, specifically Obama, as weak on terror. The FISA bill that just moved through the House is crap, plain in simple, it expands the president's power to spy on Americans and violate Constitutional protections over privacy, and even worse it gives telecom companies that knowingly violated the law retroactive immunity from prosecution. The presidential power part can be undone by the next, more Democratic, session of Congress and President Obama. The immunity can't be undone. Of course with Bush in the White House and a Congress completely unwilling to hold him accountable for breaking federal laws, it doesn't really matter what the law says now does it? But that is another story. Obama had to support the so-called compromise. If he opposed it and it didn't pass, the Republicans would embark in a major disinformation campaign to paint the Democrats as weak on "terror" and if a terrorist attack did occur, you can be sure that the Republicans would blame the Democrats' rejection of the FISA bill (even though the existing FISA bill already gives the president more than enough power to combat terrorism). If Obama had opposed it and it had failed in the Senate I'd be even more afraid of Bush purposely letting a terrorist attack slip so they could exploit it politically. I don't think many people who were upset about Obama's less-than-enthusiastic support of the FISA legislation (minus the telecom immunity that he has said he'll try to get removed) really had an understanding of the very fine line he has to walk. They failed to see the political context or the strategic bigger picture. They placed way too much meaning into that single vote, which hasn't even occurred yet.
Let me tell you what I hope happens now. I hope that the Democrats manage to get the telecom immunity stripped from the FISA bill and I hope they send it to Bush without telecom immunity so that he is "forced" to veto the bill, since he has pledged to veto any bill that doesn't give full legal immunity for his corporate friends. Then, the tables are turned and suddenly it is Bush who is "putting the nation at risk" by playing politics (or playing corporate whore) with national security. Suddenly if terrorists strike, it is Bush and the Republicans who are going to be in the hot seat because they put corporations over the safety of the American people (or so it would look, according to the Republicans, who like to pretend our existing laws aren't good enough). I think there is a much smaller chance of Bush letting a terrorist attack slip past if the guilt could easily be pinned on him. If that is what Obama had planned all along, he is brilliant.
Anyway, I will be on the lookout for any other hints that McCain, Bush or any other Republicans are alluding to a future terrorist attack. If such an attack does occur, it better be quickly investigated to discover whether or not the Bush administration had any warning. Let's just leave it at that for now, if the worst should happen, be suspecious, but nothing is a coincidence with these people, and nothing is sacred, just look at the war in Iraq waged for corporate profits that has led to the deaths of many more Americans than died on 9/11, you can't tell me that they wouldn't sacrifice a couple hundred or a couple thousand more Americans to change their political prospects around.
Oh yeah, and for those who don't recall Charlie Black, here is a refresher:
Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe. The fact that John McCain's top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda.
Notice they begin with saying that Obama welcomes a debate over national security with McCain, perhaps to hit back at the beginning of the offending quote that asserted that McCain wins on national security. Obama has made it clear throughout this campaign that he will not shy away from the national security or foreign policy debate like other Democrats have because he knows how to fight back, and he has the facts on his side. In other words, bring it on.
Update #2: I should also point out, as the Obama campaign has, that McCain said something similar about benefiting politically from tragedy. Following the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto:
In an interview with reporters after the event, McCain said, "I would hate for this tragedy to affect anyone's campaign." But he was quick to add that "my theme throughout this campaign has been that I'm the one with the experience, the knowledge, and the judgment. Perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials."
This is not insignificant, because it shows that McCain looks to major tragic events, like a political assassination or a terrorist attack as something that would help him politically by giving him an opportunity to "enhance" his "credentials" (read: fearmonger and pretend he doesn't have a horrible record on national security and foreign policy).
We've long known that Republicans care more about playing politics than actually solving problems. This is especially the case with the environment. For decades liberals have warned of the dangers of global warming and environmental degradation but were dismissed by conservatives as a bunch of alarmist nuts. Now look at who the nuts are, now that liberals were vindicated by science and denial of global warming is about as ridiculous as Holocaust denial. Finally, the mainstream is starting to fully understand what those on the left have known for a long time. Yet even in the last couple of years the Bush administration has tried to silence scientists who have tried to warn us about the role of humans in climate change. Global warming is the most frequently given example of McCain's separation from mainstream Republicans, and rightfully so, he has acknowledged the existence of global warming while most of his colleagues have continued to lie about the overwhelming evidence so they can keep lining corporate pocketbooks with fresh green cash. That, however, is setting the bar pretty low.
That also doesn't mean McCain is in any way green, or in any way opposed to playing politics to feed his corporate friends thick profits while offering fake solutions to Americans that will do nothing to solve problems like global warming. Take for example the Bush/McCaingas tax pander scheme. I've written about this a lot, but since I was writing in the context of the primary election, I focused on Hillary's embrace of this "quick fix", which essentially amounts to a $10 billion handout to oil companies that does almost nothing to reduce gas prices for average Americans. The plan, especially the Republican version of it, actually does quite a bit of harm considering the suspension of the federal gas tax would drain the already underfunded Highway Trust Fund on much needed revenue (you know, the money needed to keep bridges from collapsing as you drive over them), while in theory (if it actually worked to decrease gas prices, which it wouldn't) also increasing demand for gas, thus further exacerbating global warming. If anything at this point we should be discouraging driving by encouraging the use of mass transit and alternative modes of transportation. A great example of eco-friendly mass transit that we should be investing in is intercity passenger rail (Amtrak), which coincidentally is also a great example of another green solution that McCain is against. So on the gas tax pander scheme, McCain sides with Bush and the oil companies, while playing voters for fools by peddling a false solution that will actually end up screwing them over in the end.
McCain has been running around the country touting his "green" credentials, saying he supports alternative energy research even though he consistently voted against research and other investments in alternative energy over the years. McCain has actually made it a bit of a running campaign theme to talk about how we need all kinds of new solutions, while opposing any investment in those very same solutions in the Senate. If hypocrisy were a viable alternative to gasoline, McCain would be a national treasure. On the campaign trail McCain has saved some lukewarm criticism for oil speculators which are believed to be part of the reason for soaring oil prices. Energy speculators are able to drive up prices and generally do whatever they want as a direct result of deregulation in energy trading markets, which has been a pet cause of the Republicans for decades. And guess who's campaign co-chair and top economic advisor (former Texas Senator Phil Gramm) had his hand in pushing the so-called "Enron loophole" that makes all this unrestricted speculation possible? I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with "McSame". Yet again, McCain talks tough about gas prices, yet does the bidding of big oil while opposing every real solution to our crisis of energy independence and climate change.
Of course no discussion of McCain would be complete without a flip-flop, McCain's specialty. While McCain was campaigning for the Republican nomination back in 2000 he was opposed to environmentally destructive offshore drilling, which probably hurt his chances with his corporate-friendly Republican base. This time around, McCain has learned his lesson and has embraced the same destructive right-wing policies of Bush. Flip-flop. Now McCain and Bush sing the praises of offshore drilling as a hideous duet. Given that offshore drilling has become a major part of McCain's so-called "solution" to soaring gas prices, let's take a look at what his "solution" really means.
A steady stream of pollution from offshore rigs causes a wide range of health and reproductive problems for fish and other marine life.
Offshore drilling exposes wildlife to the threat of oil spills that would devastate their populations.
Offshore drilling activities destroy kelp beds, reefs and coastal wetlands.
Over its lifetime, a single oil rig can dump more than 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings into the ocean.
Over its lifetime, a single oil rig can drill between 50-100 wells, each dumping 25,000 pounds of toxic metals, such as lead, chromium and mercury, and potent carcinogens like toluene, benzene, and xylene into the ocean.
Over its lifetime, a single oil rig can pollute the air as much as 7,000 cars driving 50 miles a day.
And all that is when they are working properly, here is a look at what can happen when they suffer a catastrophic breakdown:
In May 1992, Chevron USA pleaded guilty to 65 violations of the Clean Water Act and paid $8 million in fines for illegal discharges from the company's production platform of the California coast.
In March 1997, Chevron was fined 1.2 million for operating a well off the coast of Ventura with a broken ant-blowout valve, a key environmental protection on an offshore oil well.
In 1998, a rupture in Torch Oil's pipeline spilled 21,000 gallons of oil, damaging a rich ocean fishing ground and killing wildlife in the delicate coastal ecosystem at the mouth of the Santa Ynez River.
State and local authorities repeatedly cited the Venoco Corporation for releases of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas at its Goleta platform in 1998-99.
An ARCO pipeline ruptured in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, spilling 193,000 gallons of oil into the Santa Clara River.
And that is why citizens of coastal states like California and Florida have been strongly opposed to offshore drilling. Now, however, with rising gas prices Republicans (and oil companies) are looking to exploit voter unease to finally undo the decades old moratorium on offshore drilling so oil companies can expand on their already record profits, because apparently they don't already have enough money.
And since Bush, McCain and the Republicans are touting offshore drilling as the solution to all of our problems, we should run their claims through the reality filter.
First of all, according to the Department of Energy there are about 18 billion barrels of oil in these restricted areas that McCain/Bush want to open up to oil companies. That sounds like a lot, but it isn't. At peak production that oil would only decrease the price of oil by around $1.50 per barrel. Oh yeah, and peak production would be about 20 years from now. It would take nearly 10 years for the oil companies to locate the oil, setup platforms, drill and start having the oil flow to refineries and onto the global market (yes, global, did you really think that oil was going to go to the US? That isn't how the market works, all that oil is just a drop in the global bucket). So much for short term solutions. So Bush/McCain's solution is for us to decrease the price of a barrel of oil (now about $136) by $1.50, 20 years from now. If you are 20 now, you will be 40 years old by the time McCain's "solution" kicks in.
But let's stop for a little perspective on that "solution", because it gets worse. Look at it this way, on June 5th of this year oil jumped $5.50 per barrel. The next day on June 6th it jumped $11. That's a $16.50 increase in the price of oil, in 48 hours, McCain's solution would damage the environment and would only drop this price by $1.50 over 20 years! This "solution", even if we magically saw the peak benefits the very same day the drilling was authorized, would be maybe $2-3 per barrel if we drilled the hell out of these protected coastal waters AND the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (which Bush has been wanting to drill for years now, but McCain has resisted, wait for this to be his next flip-flop). And have you noticed that the few times recently when oil prices actually dropped a couple dollars per barrel the gas prices didn't go down at all? Do you think gas prices would move at all with a minor fluctuation over decades in the price of gas? Hell no, oil companies would pocket that in an instant. Essentially all we gain by drilling is harming the environment, pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, and enriching the oil companies.
And there is another problem: The oil companies already have land they can drill, but they aren't drilling. Why would they not be drilling when they have all this oil laying around? Because keeping supply down drives prices up, and the longer they sit on their reserves and starve Americans for gas, the more money they make. Environmentalist's recent Daily Kos diary exposes the real picture of what is going on:
In fact, only 17% of the leased areas is in production. So, with about 33 million acres of [unprotected] offshore areas already available to drill and not being drilled, why does the oil and gas industry need to have access to still more? The fact is that nearly 25 BILLION barrels of oil off the coast of the United States is currently available for drilling...and industry is not drilling it.
Not to mention natural gas. Most of the natural gas occurring offshore (over 328 TRILLION cubic feet – an eleven year supply at current consumption rates) is currently available for leasing and development.
And they’re not going after it.
This is the story throughout the country, more than 44 million acres of onshore public lands are leased for oil and gas development and yet most of it is not being drilled. All told (onshore and offshore), 68 million acres are leased and sitting idle. Over 10,000 permits are currently 'stockpiled' by industry. But still they want more.
Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361%. And did you see your gasoline costs drop? How about your electricity costs? Propane? natural gas? Uh...no. There is absolutely no correlation between the industrialization of public lands and the price of fossil fuels.
It has been estimated that if all of those currently inactive leases were drilled, the USA would produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas EVERY DAY, accounting for a doubling of US oil production and a 75% increase in US natural gas production. The Minerals Management Service tells us that about 80% of fossil fuels available in offshore are currently available for development.
What's going on here is yet another cynical attempt by the GOP and the oil and gas robber barons to increase and assure huge industry profits at the expense of the American people. These companies don’t want to drill these areas. They want to hold them as assets to limit the amount of oil and gas on the market so that prices rise still further - and they make more money. They want to hold on to these areas so that they can drill them ten or fifteen years from now and make an even bigger fortune.
Bingo. The Bush/McCain plan has nothing to do with lowering the price of gas because the problem isn't that oil companies can't drill in enough places, because they don't want to drill the resources they already have. The Bush/McCain plan amounts to nothing more than a big fat gift to oil companies, a giant thank you for screwing Americans at the pumps, and for padding the pockets of Republicans.
In addition to flip-flops, no speech by McCain would be complete without McCain either flat out lying to people, or having absolutely no clue what he is talking about. For instance, during his energy speech (which was received very warmly by oil companies, surprise surprise) McCain said:
As for offshore drilling, it's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston. Yet for reasons that become less convincing with every rise in the price of foreign oil, the federal government discourages offshore production.
Let's look at the reality of what Katrina and Rita did to our offshore drilling rigs:
The oil pollution in the wake of Hurricane Katrina could be among the worst recorded in North America, officials trying to coordinate the clean-up say. The US coastguard, which is responsible for the marine environment, said yesterday more than 6.5 million gallons of crude oil had been spilt in at least seven major incidents. The previous worst spill in US waters was the 11m gallons in Alaskan waters from the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
The figure does not include petrol and oil spilt from up to 250,000 cars which have been submerged, or that spilt from hundreds of petrol stations. The coastguard says it has received almost 400 reports of spills, the vast majority of which have not been assessed.
Yeah, so much for no spillage or significant damage from Katrina and Rita. Let's take another look at how safe these oil platforms are:
Five days after Hurricane Rita made landfall, the extent of the damage to offshore oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico sharpened yesterday after Chevron indicated that one of its three large platforms had capsized after losing its moorings.
The deepwater platform, called Typhoon, was spotted Sunday drifting nearly 80 miles from its original position, a Chevron spokesman, Mickey Driver, said. The company had first said on Monday that Typhoon had been "severely damaged."
Offshore platforms, especially those that operate in deep water, are designed to withstand the most severe storms. Typhoon's accident came a few weeks after Royal Dutch Shell, the largest operator in the gulf, said that its Mars platform, which accounted for 15 percent of the gulf's oil production, had been damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
An oil rig tore free of its moorings as Hurricane Katrina lashed the Alabama coast, before surging downriver and smashing into a suspension bridge, witnesses said.
The platform broke free from the Bender shipbuilding and repair yard in Mobile during the morning as the then category four hurricane walloped the southern US coast.
The runaway rig then drifted through the choppy waters of the Mobile River before hitting the Cochrane/Africatown USA road bridge.
From New Orleans to New York, the jigsaw pieces of the USA's energy infrastructure — its rigs, refineries and pipelines — lay in disarray after the destruction of Hurricane Katrina.
A big offshore rig supplier, Noble, said the storm blew one of its giant platforms 17 miles off its moorings.
Another rig supplier, Rowan, said one of its rigs may have capsized and sunk.
Yeah, that seems really safe McCain. Nothing to worry about there, those oil-filled mammoths are as sturdy as mountains (extreme sarcasm). So, as is constantly the case with the crap McCain spews, we have to ask ourselves, is McCain knowingly lying to voters to further his agenda, or is he really that ignorant that he simply has no idea that crap he is saying is false? It is really hard to tell. He messes up so often, even when it doesn't really help his cause any, that part of me wants to say he is just a complete idiot that just don't have the slightest clue what he is talking about, whether it be foreign policy, national security or the environment (or his own record on any topic).
There is a lot of information here, so let's recap. McCain has consistently opposed measures that would help develop alternative energy and decrease our reliance of fossil fuels. McCain opposes Amtrak, which pretty much everyone (but him and Bush and some of the more hardcore Republicans) agrees is an extremely important investment for a greener future. McCain supported the war in Iraq and energy market deregulation that have been the largest contributors to the skyrocketing price of oil. And McCain's "solution" to record oil prices is to decrease them by a few bucks over the next 20 years by contaminating the coastal waters around our countries major tourist areas (which represent a $300+ billion a year industry) with oil, sludge and metals. That is McCain's "solution" to our energy/ecological crisis.
Obama's plan includes investing heavily in a "green" economy and alternative energy, increasing fuel efficiency standards, and mandatory decreases in CO2 emissions. Read more about his plan here.
“ Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.
— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007
Update: I'm not sure how I missed this, but I just came across a video of Obama nailing McCain on his offshore drilling deception, using the facts that seem to be excluded from the media coverage of the issue....which is probably why we never saw it. Check it out:
Update #2: Also check out McCain's big payday, courtesy of the oil companies after he completely sold out and started spewing their propaganda (lies) to the voters.
Four decades ago we put people on the moon, so it only makes sense that we finally developed fancy dual flush toilets. Yes, I'm doing a blog post about toilets.
I just came across the latest advance in human waste management and I decided to share. The idea behind dual flush toilets isn't that the toilet flushes twice, because that wouldn't be eco-friendly at all. Rather, the toilet can flush in two separate modes, one for, well, #1, and one for #2. Each mode uses a different amount of water, .8 and 1.6 gallons respectively, so that you aren't using unnecessary water washing away your potty. The result, via TreeHugger:
Sci-fi, through and through
This single innovation with its Half Flush and Full Flush technology can reduce water usage by up to 67% compared with the traditional toilet that uses 2.9 gallons in a single flush.
Simple huh? You'd think the "amazing" power of the market would have brought us something like this sooner, just like it probably should have came up with more fuel efficient cars decades ago, but I guess the market isn't all that forward thinking. Forget Milton Friedman.
The New York Times has a good article today highlighting the enormous 50-state general election campaign Obama has laid out for between now and November 4th. In reality his strategy has at least as much to do with future elections than this election.
Essentially the plan is for Obama to use his superior fundraising advantage and huge network of grassroot volunteers to push the Republicans back with a coast-to-coast, 50-state, full court press. While Obama knows he can't win in all 50 states, he knows that putting resources in every state, even solidly Republican states, will force McCain and the Republicans to invest their resources in defending their home turf, so they won't be able to spend as much time or money into swing states, and definitely not any in blue turf. Not only will this wear out McCain and his resources, it will build the party in 50 states, giving a big boost to down-the-ballot Democrats in local, gubernatorial and congressional elections. For instance, we might not be able to win Alaska, which has only voted for a Democrat once, and that was in 1964, but having Obama put resources into Alaska (as well as his name at the top of the ballot) may very well help put the two Democratic congressional candidates, Mark Begich for the Senate and Ethan Berkowitz for Alaska's single House seat, over the edge.
But then again, maybe Obama can even win Alaska, a place that ought to be completely safe for Republicans. Recent polls have shown him only about 7 points behind McCain, and that is one of McCain's better red states. In Georgia, where Bush beat Kerry by 17%, McCain is only one point ahead of Obama in the most recent poll. In many other "red" states, Obama is also polling competitively with McCain, which does not bode well at all for McCain. All of this shows two things clearly. First, Obama is a very popular candidate that has a message that resonates with many Americans. Second, the Republicans are very unpopular after 8 years of ruining this country, and many parts of the world. The Republican brand is basically no better than toilet paper now, and it should be after how horribly they have messed everything up.
Anyway, if you want to get a decent look at what Obama's historic general election campaign is going to look like, check out the article.
John McCain is a typical politician, and politicians have many things in common, one of which is a love for photo-ops, so they can pretend to care, or be doing something, about one thing or another. They say a picture speaks a thousand words, and your typical politician believes that if they can get in a nice picture, they won't have to speak any words, or put in any effort whatsoever.
So yesterday, nearly two weeks after the massive flooding began ravaging Iowa, John McCain and George Bush finally made their way to the flood zone. Since the beginning Obama had been raising awareness of the disaster, particularly on his website, asking his supporters to donate their time and money to the relief efforts. Not a mention of it on McCain's website. Bush was touring Europe and didn't see fit to cut his trip short in response to the state of emergency back home. And last week Obama was in Illinois where the flooding has also hit, filling sandbags and discussing disaster response with the locals.
The McCain/Bush trip (although they didn't go together because they didn't want a repeat of their last joint disaster photo shoot - see below) came over a week after Obama canceled his plans to go to Iowa. Why did he cancel? Out of respect to the state, because he didn't want to take away focus from the relief efforts, and because the Governor of Iowa specifically asked him not to come while they were trying to deal with the disaster. Governor Culver made the same request to the McCain campaign, but obviously McCain values photo-ops over respecting the will of state government and doing what is best for the relief effort:
Patrick Dillon, Culver's chief of staff, said the governor was concerned that McCain's trip would divert local law enforcement from the flood recovery effort to provide security for McCain.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama canceled a scheduled visit to eastern Iowa last week at the request of state officials.
"As a courtesy — and as we did for Senator Obama — we privately made an effort to make sure that Senator McCain knew that state and local resources were still being deployed to support the flood fight and that now may not be the best time for a campaign trip," Dillon said in a statement.
Dillon's comments came as President Bush toured the state, and hundreds of law enforcement officers were diverted from flood recovery to provide security for him.
So does McCain care that his presence, in addition to Bush's presence, would take away critical manpower from the relief effort? Hell no. When it comes to disaster response, Bush and McCain have a solid strategy: Too little, too late, mess up the relief effort as much as possible.
Dansac over at Daily Kos shows us that McCain's incompetence goes even further, because McCain actually voted against federal funds for flood control in Des Moines, IA, the state capital, which had to be partially evacuated earlier in the week. McCain dismissed the funding as unnecessary "pork barrel" spending, apparently not having a keen enough understanding of the funding process to realize that some of that money is actually necessary, practical, and economically smart. This from dansac:
The Des Moines Register has another doozy for its readers to wake up to today:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposed legislation last year that included money for flood control in Des Moines, which shows he is wrong to push for reforms to the congressional earmark system, a Democratic lawmaker charged Thursday.
Oops. Johnny Mac railed against this bill, claiming it was filled with pork. I think the citizens of Iowa are not going to be so receptive to the notion of critical infrastructure = pork.
Every member of the Iowa congressional delegation voted to override Bush's veto, the first override of his presidency.
"This legislation is fundamentally flawed, authorizing nearly 1,000 new projects without any method for prioritizing the needs of our national water infrastructure," he told the Senate. He added that the bill was "full of pork projects and unchecked government spending."
So let's get this straight. McCain, as he did with the folks in New Orleans, voted against any federal spending on improving the infrastructure there. Then, once disaster struck, he decided to visit the area against the request of the state because it could be a distraction and divert critical resources...
Yes, once again, McCain stood behind Bush in opposing much needed money for infrastructure investment that would prove crucial in the event of an emergency, again choosing ideology and politics over what makes sense.
Bush and McCain celebrating McCain's birthday while New Orleans and the Gulf coast languished under the destruction of Hurricane Katrina
Hypocrisy is a funny thing, and the Republicans have always been well endowed with it. I've written before about the right-wing's attempts to smear Michelle Obama and paint her to be some America-hating black panther or terrorist. The accusations are ridiculous and predictable, but that doesn't stop a lot of right-wing viewers/listeners of idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity from actually eating it all up like it is real.
The most prolific smear against her has been the Republicans taking her comments that, as a result of the outpouring of democratic activity, energy, and America's acceptance, for the first time in history, of a minority presidential candidate, she was for the first time in her adult life, proud of this country. And literally for months now the Republicans have been screaming about this on TV, radio and on the internet, saying that Michelle Obama is racist, and hates America, blah blah blah. It has been insanity. It is beyond ridiculous that they have grabbed on to what was really a very positive comment about her really being proud of this moment in American history (Laura Bush even came out and said this is what Michelle meant), and tried to twist it into something bad to use to demonize her (Cindy McCain even jumped on the bandwagon repeatedly proclaiming that she has always been proud of this country). But like I said, it is absolutely predictable, because we know the Republicans can't win on the issues, because they are defending policies that have been horrible failures and have screwed this country up for the last 8 years. So they have to resort to ridiculous personal attacks like this.
Last night, Dan Abrams exposed some past comments from John McCain, in which he repeatedly stated the following:
"I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company."
Woah now, McCain actually admitted, on multiple occasions, that he didn't really love America until he was taken prisoner in Vietnam?? He was 31 years old when that happened. He didn't love America for 31 years...? OH. MY. GOD. And of course the right-wing talk show hosts and pundits are jumping all over this screaming "Why does John McCain hate America?!", right? After all, they've been doing this for months now against Michelle, for comments that we arguably less "offensive" (if you want to call this offensive). Let's stop for a second and compare the comments:
John McCain said he didn't love his country for 31 years.
Michelle Obama said for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. Michelle has been an adult for 26 years, and she just said "proud", she never said she didn't love America. And also, you have to realize who has been controlling the country for her entire adult life, the Republicans (and Bill Clinton who was Reagan-lite when it came to economic issues), and they have been screwing up everything for that time. All of these problems we are seeing now, none of them started with Bush, Bush just sent them over the edge, but they were all started with Nixon and Reagan. (See my comments below on idiots pretending the US can do no wrong)
So I submit to the most jingoistic, ultra-patriotic, red-blooded, beef-eating, flag-waving Americans out there, which is worse, not loving your country, or not being proud of it? Something tells me if you didn't tell them who said which, they'd point to the person who didn't love their country for over three decades as the anti-American terrorist-hugger. Yet somehow when it turns out that a white Republican male said it, it is OK, and suddenly the black woman Democrat is the American hater, while the Republican is just a hero. Do you see the hypocrisy? Do you see the double-standards? That happens because it isn't really about love for country or patriotism or any of that, it is about politics, it is about exploiting patriotism, and it is probably mixed in with a fair amount of bigotry and racial double-standards.
Dan Abrams, to his credit, actually made a point of calling the Republicans on their double-standards, he challenged his Republican guests, the same people who have taken part in the smears against Michelle, and asked what if she had admitted to not loving America until some event (let's say this election)? Would they be making excuses for the comments like they are with McCain? Or would they be screaming bloody murder and calling her an America-hater and a racist? We all know the answer, it is obvious, they would be demonizing her and raising hell about it coast to coast. Yet with McCain, they don't care, and they just praise him as being an American hero. Shameless.
Now the scary part: Who is in charge of keeping a terrorist attack from happening now? George W. Bush. The same George W. Bush who ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks before 9/11, and literally vacationed while he was letting Osama bin Laden strike.
.jpg)
