Nate Silver is significantly more optimistic than I am on the benefits of a public option-less health reform bill, and has some good points to make. I like his point about how the bill still contains rules preventing insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions or current illness, but my worry is the possibility of loopholes that render these provisions meaningless (e.g., does it also bar them from raising that person's premiums/deductibles/co-pay to the point where they can't afford it?), and also the possibility of Republicans, lobbyists, and teabaggers to turn on those provisions after they prevail against the public option.
Also, Rick Perlstein on the nutball protesters as just the latest iteration of a long-standing national phenomenon.
Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts
Monday, August 17, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
a bizarre perception of moral imperative
This whole Sanford thing has gotten so, well, weird. Here we have Lindsey Graham telling David Gregory that the besieged governor should be allowed to keep his job, but only if he reconciles with his wife.
It makes my brain hurt.
First, let's set aside the strange spectacle of a single, and an almost certainly closeted gay, Republican senator essentially implying that Sanford becomes unfit for public office if he loses his marriage, though that alone makes me stare at Graham like he just leapt upside down onto the ceiling while cackling and spitting green goo. What difference does it make whether Sanford's wife agrees to reconcile or not, or for that matter whether he decides his marriage is worth saving or not? Who the f**k cares, and what does it have to do with his ability to do his job? Does his infidelity somehow become less egregious if he convinces his wife to stick around? If this happened because his marriage is emotionally over, is it more "gubernatorial" to stay in a loveless marriage than to get a divorce?
Either I just don't understand the southern conservative moral code, or Lindsey Graham doesn't.
It makes my brain hurt.
First, let's set aside the strange spectacle of a single, and an almost certainly closeted gay, Republican senator essentially implying that Sanford becomes unfit for public office if he loses his marriage, though that alone makes me stare at Graham like he just leapt upside down onto the ceiling while cackling and spitting green goo. What difference does it make whether Sanford's wife agrees to reconcile or not, or for that matter whether he decides his marriage is worth saving or not? Who the f**k cares, and what does it have to do with his ability to do his job? Does his infidelity somehow become less egregious if he convinces his wife to stick around? If this happened because his marriage is emotionally over, is it more "gubernatorial" to stay in a loveless marriage than to get a divorce?
Either I just don't understand the southern conservative moral code, or Lindsey Graham doesn't.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Joe Barton overestimates his own intelligence
There was a story I heard around right wingers about George W. Bush, and it typically revolved around some high-level meeting or other with some expert giving a presentation. The people at the table would take turns grilling the expert on various things, and then George W. would pipe up after seeming to have been bored with the whole thing and ask some incredible penetrating question that really "pierced to the heart of the matter."
I'm as skeptical of this hagiography as you are (though I have no doubt that Bush spent lots of time in meetings looking bored), but it says something about the perception of intelligence in certain quarters of the country. Here Bush as portrayed as having some ultra-honed "common sense" that more than makes up for his lack of knowledge and intellectual curiosity, and in fact allows him to outwit experts in their own areas of expertise.
It must be from this same perception of intelligence that causes Rep. Joe Barton (R-where else?) to make a fool of himself thusly. Here he is playing the part of the Incredible Man with Uncommon Common Sense:
Via TPM
Ouch, right? Not so fast: Barton apparently later tweeted:
I'm as skeptical of this hagiography as you are (though I have no doubt that Bush spent lots of time in meetings looking bored), but it says something about the perception of intelligence in certain quarters of the country. Here Bush as portrayed as having some ultra-honed "common sense" that more than makes up for his lack of knowledge and intellectual curiosity, and in fact allows him to outwit experts in their own areas of expertise.
It must be from this same perception of intelligence that causes Rep. Joe Barton (R-where else?) to make a fool of himself thusly. Here he is playing the part of the Incredible Man with Uncommon Common Sense:
Via TPM
Ouch, right? Not so fast: Barton apparently later tweeted:
"I seemed [sic] to have baffled the Energy Sec with basic question - Where does oil come from?"
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
it's the election, stupid
This is not a protest about taxes, because 95% of Americans (and probably 100% of the teabaggers) got a tax cut this year. This is not about spending or the size of the government, because there were no such protests when George W. Bush broke Clinton's balanced budget and put the government on steroids. This is not about freedom, because there are no rights being curtailed whatsoever.
The teabaggers are protesting losing Congress and the presidency to the Democrats. That's it.
The teabaggers are protesting losing Congress and the presidency to the Democrats. That's it.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
the regional party of the South
Reading these botched predictions and thinking about a conversation I had the other day, it occurs to me that the central reason the Republicans seem so out of touch is because they assumed there were always enough conservatives to win every election. The Democrats make a play for every demographic, to both their benefit and detriment, but that's a very different strategy than the Republican one. If you're not a social conservative, an economic conservative, or a foreign policy neoconservative, the Republicans are not interested in your vote, and will use you as a bogeyman to scare conservatives to the polls. The problem is those groups the Republicans have spent the last 30 years willfully antagonizing-- atheists/agnostics, feminists, liberals, immigrants, gays, religious non-Judaeo-Christians-- are among the fastest growing demographics in the country. Meanwhile, George W. Bush and the Christian Right made Republicanism uncool to a whole generation of Americans just now becoming politically aware, while congressional Republicans chased Hispanics and college-educated whites into the waiting arms of the Democratic Party. And yes, Americans are becoming slightly more liberal.
That's why it's so deathly important for Karl Rove and the rest to keep repeating "America is still a center-right country." They have to convince themselves, because the alternative is too scary.
That's why it's so deathly important for Karl Rove and the rest to keep repeating "America is still a center-right country." They have to convince themselves, because the alternative is too scary.
Monday, October 20, 2008
McCain's endgame strategy
In the third debate, John McCain peppered his answers with old bromides like "redistribution of wealth" and "socialism" and, in a turn that most people considered damaging to his chances with the women vote, went on a brief tirade about abortion, gesturing scare quotes as he sarcastically intoned "health of the mother." When asked about the racist and eliminationist comments being spouted by his supporters in recent rallies, he defended his supporters vigorously, calling them patriotic Americans, not making even the slightest concession that things have gotten a little out of hand.
Sarah Palin commits another apparent gaffe a couple of days later, referring to North Carolina as one of "the pro-America areas of this great nation."
Then, two days after that, McCain himself makes the same mistake in Virginia, saying that, even though he's behind in the state as a whole, he's winning in "real Virginia."
And then today, McCain takes a racially charge turn for the worst, deriding Obama's tax plan as "welfare."
Yet despite all these supposed "gaffes," McCain has actually gained ground in the last 5 days, gaining from -12 to -4 in the indy vote and gaining 6 points among Republicans in the Research 2000/Daily Kos poll.
Can you see what's going on here?
It looks to me like the Hate Talk Express has decided to try to win the way Bush did it in '04: focus like a laser on conservatives. Return to the hard right rhetoric of the primary, rile them up, scare the hell out of them, and send them to the polls in the highest numbers you can. Use fear and hate to close the enthusiasm gap, rely on the high turnout rate of key conservative demographics and hope that once again blacks, young people, and women-- Obama's strongest demographics-- don't show up in high enough numbers to make up the difference. A judicious sprinkling of voter suppression efforts should be just enough to tip the scales.
There is obviously a case to be made that this tactic won't be enough. For one, Democrats have registered millions more new voters than the Republicans, so there may be too few conservatives put him over the top. Also, at the moment the enthusiasm gap is still much wider than it was in '04. Then there's the issue of Obama's wicked ground game and huge money advantage. McCain's tactic could backfire in a way that Bush's didn't; for instance, there's a chance that his "real VA" remark could boost turnout among Obama voters and leaners in Virginia incensed at the slight (say what you will about W, but he would never have made that mistake). There's the economy. There's Sarah Palin, whose potentially proximity to the presidency scares the bejeesus out of a lot of people.
And, of course, there's Barack's superior strategizing. Powell's endorsement was rolled out at the best possible moment to blunt McCain's case to conservatives, and he's been far more effective than any Democrat I've ever seen at working the media. McCain, on the other hand, can't even keep his own operatives from hyping a Powell endorsement before people leave work for the weekend.
Sarah Palin commits another apparent gaffe a couple of days later, referring to North Carolina as one of "the pro-America areas of this great nation."
Then, two days after that, McCain himself makes the same mistake in Virginia, saying that, even though he's behind in the state as a whole, he's winning in "real Virginia."
And then today, McCain takes a racially charge turn for the worst, deriding Obama's tax plan as "welfare."
Yet despite all these supposed "gaffes," McCain has actually gained ground in the last 5 days, gaining from -12 to -4 in the indy vote and gaining 6 points among Republicans in the Research 2000/Daily Kos poll.
Can you see what's going on here?
It looks to me like the Hate Talk Express has decided to try to win the way Bush did it in '04: focus like a laser on conservatives. Return to the hard right rhetoric of the primary, rile them up, scare the hell out of them, and send them to the polls in the highest numbers you can. Use fear and hate to close the enthusiasm gap, rely on the high turnout rate of key conservative demographics and hope that once again blacks, young people, and women-- Obama's strongest demographics-- don't show up in high enough numbers to make up the difference. A judicious sprinkling of voter suppression efforts should be just enough to tip the scales.
There is obviously a case to be made that this tactic won't be enough. For one, Democrats have registered millions more new voters than the Republicans, so there may be too few conservatives put him over the top. Also, at the moment the enthusiasm gap is still much wider than it was in '04. Then there's the issue of Obama's wicked ground game and huge money advantage. McCain's tactic could backfire in a way that Bush's didn't; for instance, there's a chance that his "real VA" remark could boost turnout among Obama voters and leaners in Virginia incensed at the slight (say what you will about W, but he would never have made that mistake). There's the economy. There's Sarah Palin, whose potentially proximity to the presidency scares the bejeesus out of a lot of people.
And, of course, there's Barack's superior strategizing. Powell's endorsement was rolled out at the best possible moment to blunt McCain's case to conservatives, and he's been far more effective than any Democrat I've ever seen at working the media. McCain, on the other hand, can't even keep his own operatives from hyping a Powell endorsement before people leave work for the weekend.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
"academic freedom"
Conservatives hate Affirmative Action, except when they don't:
All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
guns up
Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue finally figures out how to lessen the crowds at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport: by allowing people to carry guns into the airport. From TPM:
Yeah, you read that right. He said he wants to allow men with guns into the airport so that his wife will be less likely to be mugged there. No flaws in that logic!
Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said Monday that guns should be allowed in public areas of the nation's busiest airport.
And he suggested his own wife might want to pack a firearm for long walks between the parking lot and the terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International.
"If my wife wanted to carry a gun, if she was going from the parking lot, walking from one of those far parking lots to pick up a grandchild or something like that, I think that's a good idea, yes," he said Monday.
Earlier this year, Perdue, a Republican, signed legislation that allows Georgians who have passed criminal background checks to carry concealed weapons onto mass transit, as well as into state parks and restaurants that serve alcohol. The new law took effect July 1.
Yeah, you read that right. He said he wants to allow men with guns into the airport so that his wife will be less likely to be mugged there. No flaws in that logic!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
damn enviros killing the economy
News about Sweetwater, TX, home of North America's largest wind farm:
But...but...how will they be able to balance the economy against the environment?
Development of the region's wind resources will also create an economic bonus similar to the boom the three largest wind farms in America have created around Sweetwater in Nolan County. While other towns in West Texas struggle with plummeting house prices and job losses, Sweetwater is in the midst of a construction explosion. Two new companies opened in the past month, one servicing the blades of the county's 2,000 turbines, another renting out cranes used in erecting new turbines. Tax revenues from the wind energy companies are bringing jobs, new roads and houses, and renovating local schools and hospitals there.
But...but...how will they be able to balance the economy against the environment?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
stupid is contagious
From a local Orlando station:
It's worth repeating that there's a strain of conservatives-- call them "pro-STD conservatives" or "Christians for the Clap"-- who are not at all bothered by the evidence that abstinence-only sex ed engenders ignorance, proto-folksy magic rituals, and increased incidences of STDs, nor will they be sad when some of these kids inevitably contract something, because abstinence-only sex ed is not about saving kids from the STDs or pregnancy or AIDS: it's about using fear to keep kids from sinning.
Think about it: if these conservatives were really out for fewer STDs and teen pregnancies, then they’d be on board with comprehensive sex ed, seeing as pretty much every study shows that it’s effective at lowering the frequency of said conditions, while abstinence-only is not. They would similarly be on board with mandating HPV vaccinations, which would save countless lives of women who will otherwise die from cervical cancer.
They’re not on board, though, and appeals to the efficacy for both programs (comprehensive sex ed and HPV vaccinations) fall on deaf ears because that’s not really the objective of the Right's moralistic sociopaths. The objective is to make kids stop having sex, and safer sexual practices and medical breakthroughs are actually an impediment to that objective because it makes sex less dangerous. Furthermore, STDs separate the wheat from the chaff because those who contract STDs “deserve it” for engaging in wicked acts.
The difference between social liberals and social conservatives is that liberals see abstinence as a way to keep kids from contracting deadly diseases, and conservatives see deadly diseases as a way to keep kids abstinent.
A recent survey that found some Florida teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy has prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state.
The survey showed that Florida teens also believe that smoking marijuana will prevent a person from getting pregnant.
State lawmakers said the myths are spreading because of Florida's abstinence-only sex education, Local 6 reported.
It's worth repeating that there's a strain of conservatives-- call them "pro-STD conservatives" or "Christians for the Clap"-- who are not at all bothered by the evidence that abstinence-only sex ed engenders ignorance, proto-folksy magic rituals, and increased incidences of STDs, nor will they be sad when some of these kids inevitably contract something, because abstinence-only sex ed is not about saving kids from the STDs or pregnancy or AIDS: it's about using fear to keep kids from sinning.
Think about it: if these conservatives were really out for fewer STDs and teen pregnancies, then they’d be on board with comprehensive sex ed, seeing as pretty much every study shows that it’s effective at lowering the frequency of said conditions, while abstinence-only is not. They would similarly be on board with mandating HPV vaccinations, which would save countless lives of women who will otherwise die from cervical cancer.
They’re not on board, though, and appeals to the efficacy for both programs (comprehensive sex ed and HPV vaccinations) fall on deaf ears because that’s not really the objective of the Right's moralistic sociopaths. The objective is to make kids stop having sex, and safer sexual practices and medical breakthroughs are actually an impediment to that objective because it makes sex less dangerous. Furthermore, STDs separate the wheat from the chaff because those who contract STDs “deserve it” for engaging in wicked acts.
The difference between social liberals and social conservatives is that liberals see abstinence as a way to keep kids from contracting deadly diseases, and conservatives see deadly diseases as a way to keep kids abstinent.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Fred Thompson drops out
(highlight reel of Thompson's first debate performance)
I've gotta tell you, admittedly I haven't been around for many presidential elections, but Fred Thompson: male prostitue may have been the least prepared presidential candidate I've ever seen, at least as a campaigner. He never seemed to be up on the news or any of the local issues where he was campaigning, he didn't have any positions on, well, anything, and spent so long fiddle-farting around on the sidelines that he was on his third campaign manager before he even announced his candidacy. I mean, for God's sake, people, he was still using note cards in the last debate! Note cards!
This early exit also says a lot about the state of the GOP, the "electability" opinions of its primary voters, and perhaps, just perhaps, the direction of the party. The most conservative candidates in the race were Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson. And the first three to get bounced? Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson.
Meanwhile, the three with the most dubious conservative cred? McCain, Romney, and 9iu11ani. And who did Fred Thompson spend the last month calling "a liberal on everything but abortion?" Mike Huckabee.
Friday, January 11, 2008
the Reagan coalition
It's a little-known fact that Ronald Reagan was also ten feet tall. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by challenging Gorbachev to single combat in the famous "Berlin Wall Brawl," throwing the Premier over the wall and breaking his neck with his trademarked "Gipper Flipper." Ronald Reagan is the illegitimate father of over half of white conservatives in the South, and yet it is rumored that Reagan's mother died a virgin. And he had an actual, real-life tax-cutting magic wand, created from the skeletal middle finger of Barry Goldwater and magically bound with the soul of Ayn Rand.
Do the GOP presidential candidates dramatically underestimate southern conservatives in these debates, or are South Carolina Republicans really this succeptible to blatant mythopoiesis? Do southern Republicans watch this tripe and really say, "Well, I would vote for Mike Huckabee, but he doesn't love Ronald Reagan as much as Mitt Romney does?" Do South Carolinians watch these debates and ever think, "Ya know, the way they're all using Reagan's corpse as a ventriloquist dummy is really pretty crass and obnoxious?"
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
culture and politics, a poll
Check out this poll from Zogby and the Norman Lear Center on politics and culture, examining how liberals, conservatives, and "moderates" enjoy TV, the news, movies, music, and video games.
What surprised me most: "Fox, the home of anti-authority satires like The Simpsons, Family Guy and MADtv, draws daily more than three times as many conservatives as liberals." There is such a thing as a liberal who doesn't like the Simpsons? I'd never thought of FOX as particularly ideological, though I do associate it with a certain "trashiness," I guess from the days when it tended to delve further into the risque than other networks.
Nevertheless, rather than "anti-authority satire" being the turn-off for liberals and turn-on for conservatives (since when were "support the troops!" police-state conservatives anti-authority?), I would imagine it's the rest of their programming, nearly half of which consists of reality TV (I counted eight, including COPS and "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"), that turns off liberals.
What I would really like to know: have we always been this culturally divided? Was it always the case that conservatives and liberals didn't listen to the same music, didn't see the same movies, and didn't watch the same TV (or even the same news, for God's sake!)? Combined with the fact that conservatives are now taking their kids out of public schools, is our society starting to pillarize?
What surprised me most: "Fox, the home of anti-authority satires like The Simpsons, Family Guy and MADtv, draws daily more than three times as many conservatives as liberals." There is such a thing as a liberal who doesn't like the Simpsons? I'd never thought of FOX as particularly ideological, though I do associate it with a certain "trashiness," I guess from the days when it tended to delve further into the risque than other networks.
Nevertheless, rather than "anti-authority satire" being the turn-off for liberals and turn-on for conservatives (since when were "support the troops!" police-state conservatives anti-authority?), I would imagine it's the rest of their programming, nearly half of which consists of reality TV (I counted eight, including COPS and "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"), that turns off liberals.
What I would really like to know: have we always been this culturally divided? Was it always the case that conservatives and liberals didn't listen to the same music, didn't see the same movies, and didn't watch the same TV (or even the same news, for God's sake!)? Combined with the fact that conservatives are now taking their kids out of public schools, is our society starting to pillarize?
Monday, October 22, 2007
political compass
An oldie but a goodie. It's a test created by (so it sounds, at least) political scientists in the UK that plots your political ideology on an X/Y axis. The X axis-- that's the horizontal one for the geometrically challenged-- represents the economic spectrum. Thus, people on the positive, or right, side believe in varying degrees that the government should not meddle in the market, while those on the left believe the government is obligated to provide certain basic services and ensure fair play in the marketplace.
The Y axis is related more directly to political power, specifically whether it should be located in the authorities (for those with positive scores) or in individuals (for the negatives). This is your quintessential fascists vs. hippies axis.
My score this time: -6.0, -5.23
My score 2 years ago: -6.25, -4.92
Apparently I'm slowly becoming less leftist and more civil libertarian.
They've since added some helpful info. Here they've tracked all the candidates currently running for president. I think Republican primary voters would be especially shocked to see this, though you lefties won't be so surprised. And here, even more shockingly, is the graph of the 2004 presidential election. I really think that this shows what Kerry campaigned as in the general, rather than his record as a senator, because I'm virtually positive that he's well to the left of where they put him.
The Y axis is related more directly to political power, specifically whether it should be located in the authorities (for those with positive scores) or in individuals (for the negatives). This is your quintessential fascists vs. hippies axis.
My score this time: -6.0, -5.23
My score 2 years ago: -6.25, -4.92
Apparently I'm slowly becoming less leftist and more civil libertarian.
They've since added some helpful info. Here they've tracked all the candidates currently running for president. I think Republican primary voters would be especially shocked to see this, though you lefties won't be so surprised. And here, even more shockingly, is the graph of the 2004 presidential election. I really think that this shows what Kerry campaigned as in the general, rather than his record as a senator, because I'm virtually positive that he's well to the left of where they put him.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
what's wrong with renewables?
Just read this article on the GOP candidates' response to climate change, and I noticed something new: several of the candidates were willing to admit that global warming is real, and several even laid out "comprehensive" solutions, but none included current renewable energy technology (wind/solar/tidal/geothermal) in their grand solutions to stop climate change. Not one.
Why is that? What is it about renewable energy that is so offensive to conservatives?
I have a theory: because they're actual solutions. Notice the other things McCain and Romney and the others mention to stop climate change: clean coal, nuclear power, drilling in ANWR, more refineries, ethanol. ANWR and more refineries don't do anything to solve climate change (those are energy independence fixes). Nuclear power and ethanol are boondoggles, as ethanol barely produces more energy than it takes to produce it (and, apparently, drives up the price of corn), and nuclear power is enormously expensive-- moreso than anything but photovoltaics-- when you include all the hidden costs. There's a reason why power companies that invest in nuclear often have to ask the government for handouts a couple of years later to recoup their "stranded costs."
And, of course, there is no such thing as clean coal. Clean coal with carbon capture and sequestration (coal burning that doesn't contribute to climate change) is still in the "experimental phase." Like hydrogen fuel cells (yet another popular GOP chimera), time travel, and establishing colonies on Mars.
They did also mention conservation, but Republican lawmakers will often say they want conservation, but when pushed they admit that they only mean making a public service announcement asking people to "turn off their lights when they leave the house."
Renewable energy, on the other hand, is real, it is viable right now, and in some forms, it's even cheap! It can be established, at least to a degree, on an individual basis; any shmoe can put a wind turbine in his backyard or a solar panel on his roof. Farmers and ranchers can use it to supplement their income, becoming small-time energy producers in their own right. It creates jobs (someone has to build the things, right?). And, most importantly, it produces no CO2, nor any pollution of any kind (only the generators themselves are left over).
Pushing renewables, however, means cutting into the profit margins of oil, gas, coal, and electric companies. It means making some real change in the fabric of our country that doesn't involve the reversion to some utopian caricature of the 1950's. It means admitting that liberals were right on the environment--and the worst kind of liberal: the hippies. It means admitting that what's best for big business is not always what's best for America.
Thinking about it, this is merely another aspect of e. coli conservatism, the willingness to sacrifice the health and safety of your own constituents to protect the profit margins of big business. Sometimes it's the natural consequence of the doctrinaire, free market fundamentalist belief that deregulation is always good. To these people, the unfettered market is like Divine Providence on X, giddily weaving its way around the room touching all the worthy people. Other times it's merely because the politician in question is a wholly bought-and-owned susidiary of the companies that lobby him/her. Whether it's meat infested with bacteria, lead-painted toys, or climate change-causing coal, these conservatives are more than happy to subject you to it all day long if it means shares of ExxonMobil or Conagra gain $.40.
Do you really want one of these characters in the White House? Correction: do you really want another one of these characters in the White House?
Why is that? What is it about renewable energy that is so offensive to conservatives?
I have a theory: because they're actual solutions. Notice the other things McCain and Romney and the others mention to stop climate change: clean coal, nuclear power, drilling in ANWR, more refineries, ethanol. ANWR and more refineries don't do anything to solve climate change (those are energy independence fixes). Nuclear power and ethanol are boondoggles, as ethanol barely produces more energy than it takes to produce it (and, apparently, drives up the price of corn), and nuclear power is enormously expensive-- moreso than anything but photovoltaics-- when you include all the hidden costs. There's a reason why power companies that invest in nuclear often have to ask the government for handouts a couple of years later to recoup their "stranded costs."
And, of course, there is no such thing as clean coal. Clean coal with carbon capture and sequestration (coal burning that doesn't contribute to climate change) is still in the "experimental phase." Like hydrogen fuel cells (yet another popular GOP chimera), time travel, and establishing colonies on Mars.
They did also mention conservation, but Republican lawmakers will often say they want conservation, but when pushed they admit that they only mean making a public service announcement asking people to "turn off their lights when they leave the house."
Renewable energy, on the other hand, is real, it is viable right now, and in some forms, it's even cheap! It can be established, at least to a degree, on an individual basis; any shmoe can put a wind turbine in his backyard or a solar panel on his roof. Farmers and ranchers can use it to supplement their income, becoming small-time energy producers in their own right. It creates jobs (someone has to build the things, right?). And, most importantly, it produces no CO2, nor any pollution of any kind (only the generators themselves are left over).
Pushing renewables, however, means cutting into the profit margins of oil, gas, coal, and electric companies. It means making some real change in the fabric of our country that doesn't involve the reversion to some utopian caricature of the 1950's. It means admitting that liberals were right on the environment--and the worst kind of liberal: the hippies. It means admitting that what's best for big business is not always what's best for America.
Thinking about it, this is merely another aspect of e. coli conservatism, the willingness to sacrifice the health and safety of your own constituents to protect the profit margins of big business. Sometimes it's the natural consequence of the doctrinaire, free market fundamentalist belief that deregulation is always good. To these people, the unfettered market is like Divine Providence on X, giddily weaving its way around the room touching all the worthy people. Other times it's merely because the politician in question is a wholly bought-and-owned susidiary of the companies that lobby him/her. Whether it's meat infested with bacteria, lead-painted toys, or climate change-causing coal, these conservatives are more than happy to subject you to it all day long if it means shares of ExxonMobil or Conagra gain $.40.
Do you really want one of these characters in the White House? Correction: do you really want another one of these characters in the White House?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
you ran as a WHAT?
The GOP is on the verge of nominating for president a guy who self-identified as liberal only 10 years ago. 1996.
That's how badly W torched the brand.
Are you starting to get a sense of why Giuliani hasn't been too enthused about a Youtube debate?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
James Dobson is to Christianity as George W. Bush is to the GOP
This study on generational shifts in perceptions of Christians is fascinating. It confirms suspicions many of us non-brownshirt Christians have had for a while-- namely, that the Christian Right is soiling Christ's good name and turning the masses away from the faith.
Simply put, the bigots are f*%king everything up for the rest of us.
The "duck your head and wait for liberalism to blow over" tactic (I actually had a conservative Catholic theology MA use those words to explain the best strategy for the Church to handle these trying new times), while easier than actually adapting to our constantly deepening understanding of humans and creation, may well go down in history as the most boneheaded idea ever conceived. Even more than trickle-down economics, Napoleon's march on Russia, and no longer stopping the clock on first down, and that's saying something.
Simply put, the bigots are f*%king everything up for the rest of us.
The "duck your head and wait for liberalism to blow over" tactic (I actually had a conservative Catholic theology MA use those words to explain the best strategy for the Church to handle these trying new times), while easier than actually adapting to our constantly deepening understanding of humans and creation, may well go down in history as the most boneheaded idea ever conceived. Even more than trickle-down economics, Napoleon's march on Russia, and no longer stopping the clock on first down, and that's saying something.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
"it's the perfect size for the human mouth"
You just can't make this up. Another creationist teaches a lesson about unintentional irony:
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Lincoln Chafee quits the GOP
I guess it was inevitable, but it's still surprising to hear. From the Providence Journal (h/t Smintheus @ dKos):
I do often consider Chafee one of the very few "unfortunate" casualties of the '06 midterms, but it seemed like he very rarely actually had the backbone to dispute with his party vocally. Still, Lincoln Chafee and the Republican party were a terrible fit, as I think most Republicans would agree.
You know you want to, Linc. Come to the side of the light.
Chafee said he disaffiliated with the party he had helped lead, and his father had led before him, because the national Republican Party has gone too far away from his stance on too many critical issues, from war to economics to the environment.
“It’s not my party any more,” he said.
Chafee’s departure is another step in the waning of the strain of moderate Republicanism that was once a winning political philosophy from Rhode Island and Connecticut to the Canadian border.
I do often consider Chafee one of the very few "unfortunate" casualties of the '06 midterms, but it seemed like he very rarely actually had the backbone to dispute with his party vocally. Still, Lincoln Chafee and the Republican party were a terrible fit, as I think most Republicans would agree.
You know you want to, Linc. Come to the side of the light.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)