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 seemed [sic] to have baffled the Energy Sec with basic question - Where does oil come from?"

anything to avoid a gas tax

Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Washington Post editorial page, writes one of the dumbest articles I've read in a while:

Raise the gas tax now, by 10 cents from the current 18.4 cents per gallon. Then replace it entirely over the next decade or so with a system that would charge drivers a fee per mile driven.

In this new world, a GPS would be built into every car and truck. It would keep track of where you drove your car, and when, but the data would not be shared beyond the vehicle so privacy would be protected. It could be set to charge more per mile driven for Hummers than for Civics; more during rush hour than in the middle of the night; more for driving on congested bridges than on empty roads.

None of this is as far-fetched or futuristic as it may sound. Anyone who has stuck an E-Z Pass transponder on a windshield has taken a step in this direction. The Netherlands plans to implement a full vehicle-miles-traveled system by 2014, Denmark by 2016. In Holland, there won't even be a car registration fee; if you don't drive your car, you don't pay.

The problem with this idea is that the sophisticated, expensive new technology that he wants built into all new cars doesn't actually offer any advantages over the stopgap solution he wants to phase out yet suffers from various extra disadvantages.

Guess what else would charge a fee per mile driven? A gas tax!

Ya know what would charge more per mile for Hummers than Civics? A gas tax!

What would charge more during rush hour and on congested roads (because of stop and go traffic and time spent idling)? A gas tax!

And guess what else won't charge you if you don't drive? Anyone?

On the other hand, a gas mileage tax system would:

1) pass an extra cost to taxpayers when they buy a car
2) implant a device in cars that can be tampered with, allowing the unscrupulous to evade the tax
3) not address the problem of cars bought before the implantation of the devices
4) give the government unprecedented information about our private lives and knowledge of our exact whereabouts at all times, which is then subject to loss, theft, and governmental surveillance

In effect, Hiatt's argument is thus: first let's solve the problem, then let's phase out that solution with a more complicated, expensive, and flawed solution that offers little or no extra benefit! What is it with conservatives and the gas tax?

Chicago: the cutting edge of public transportation

This is the coolest idea ever. I love Chicago.

a biodiesel H3 that gets 60mpg and goes 0-60 in 5 seconds

This guy is unbelievable. He's done what the big 3 claim can't be done, and with an 8th grade education.

Gored

Here is a great little rant on the treatment Al Gore has received both of late and long ago. Some things never change.

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?

Robert Samuelson can go cheney himself

Shorter Robert Samuelson: Because the Toyota Prius will not single-handedly solve climate change, the only possible reason you would buy one is to make me feel guilty.

News flash to Samuelson: the whole world does not revolve around you. This is the kind of thing that's starting to wear awfully thin, the cynicism that says people don't change their buying habits out of a sense of collective responsibility or a desire to change the world, but rather only because they want an excuse to look down their nose at you.

Of course, it's a bullshit excuse for Samuelson's attitude, anyway; this has nothing to do with his fatuous interpretation of economics or the price of corn or anything else like that. This is all about guilt. If you didn't feel a pang of guilt that you're not doing enough to help the environment, then it wouldn't bother you what other people do with their money and whether they're looking askance at you while they spend it. Not everyone can buy a Prius (we happened to have one fall in our lap), and not everyone likes the Prius or hybrids in general. Different people will do different things to help save the planet, or nothing at all if that suits them. But crying about how Al Gore's making you feel bad is a transparent admittance of guilt, and a puerile attempt at making everyone else change their behavior (for the worse!) so you can soothe your aching conscience.

The great lesson of adolescence/adulthood is learning that there are bigger, more important things out there than oneself, and that, as they say in the movies, "it's not always about you." I'd suggest Mr. Samuelson get crackin' on learning that.

this guy has his own show... on CNN

There are just so many ways to slice up Glenn Beck that choosing any one tack wouldn't do justice to the grand cynicism, malevolence, and buffoonery of this:

On the May 2 edition of CNN Newsroom, while previewing his May 2 special, "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck told host Don Lemon that he is doing the special because "the scientific consensus in Europe in the 1920s and '30s was that eugenics was a good idea," adding: "I'm glad that a few people stood against eugenics." Those comments recall remarks Beck made on the April 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, in which he likened former Vice President Al Gore's fight against global warming to Adolf Hitler's use of eugenics as justification for exterminating 6 million European Jews. On that program, Beck stated: "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government."

Beck continued: "You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming." He added: "Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did."

All bad enough, of course, in its mean-spirited absurdity. But are you ready for the punchline?

Later in the interview, Beck addressed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called Beck "CNN's chief corporate fascism advocate." In response, Beck said: "[P]eople who question global warming, they're called Nazis. They're put right up next to Holocaust deniers." [emphasis mine]

Without the slightest hint of irony. That's how stupid they think we are.

No! It CAN'T be true!

As Upton Sinclair famously said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Meet Senator James Inhofe:

Top contributor for 2006 by industry sector, 1) Energy and Natural Resources: $604,965.

Top contributor for 2006 by industry: 1) Oil and Gas: $319,708, 2) Electric Utilities: $195,907.

Top individual contributors for 2006, 1) Murray Energy Corp: $22,800, 2) Koch Industries: $22,750

Travel Financed by Special Interests for 2006 Cycle: 34 trips

Total Cost of trips: $45,131.92

Sponsor of most trips: Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Assn.

Top contributor for 2004 by industry sector, 1) Energy and Natural Resources: $590,219.

Top contributor for 2004 by industry: 1) Oil and Gas: $304,156, 2) Electric Utilities: $188,713.

Top individual contributors for 2004, 1) Murray Energy Corp: $33,200, 2) Koch Industries: $22,750

Top contributor for 2002 Election by industry sector, 1) Energy and Natural Resources: $533,519.

Top contributor for 2002 Election by industry: 1) Oil and Gas: $284,706, 2) Electric Utilities: $162,213.

Top individual contributors for 2002 Election, 1) National Republican Senatorial Cmte $33,500, 2) Murray Energy Corp: $33,200, 3) Koch Industries: $16,750

I know, I know, you could've guessed as much without the proof, but Senator "No queers in my family line!" Inhofe pissed me off yesterday by doing his moronic grandstanding with Big Oil's most misleading talking points.

Hey Jimmy boy, Al Gore doesn't think those "thousands of scientists" are wrong and he's right; he thinks they're wrong and the vast majority of scientists worldwide are right. As well as those of us with a 9th grade science education. Or are the nation's science teachers also in on what must now be the world's largest conspiracy ever?

James Inhofe, R-Exxon.

Gore back in Congress

Al Gore testified today to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce over climate change. Watched part of it. All I have to say is I was feeling pretty blue (pun intended) about how Joe Barton always manages to make Texans look like chest-thumping, sanctimonious dumbasses, but then I remembered that James Inhofe, sanctimonious dumbass extraordinaire, represents Oklahoma, and I felt a little better.