Bittman nails the Obama administration today in this surprising (to me) piece on the current trend of profits over environment. He connects a lot of dots, but brings it together in the end. (I’d counter by saying that Obama was in a fix - he has had to choose jobs and stimulus over the environment).
I think this section is worth quoting in full:
Sacrificing the environment for profits didn’t stop with Bush, and it doesn’t stop with genetically modified organisms. Take, for example, the Keystone XL pipeline extension. XL is right: the 36-inch-wide pipeline, which will stretch from the Alberta tar sands across the Great Plains to the Gulf Coast, will cost $7 billion and run for 1,711 miles — more than twice as long as the Alaska pipeline. It will cross nearly 2,000 rivers, the huge wetlands ecosystem called the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer, the country’s biggest underground freshwater supply.
If Keystone is built, we’ll see rising greenhouse gas emissions right away (tar sands production creates three times as many greenhouse gases as does conventional oil), and our increased dependence on fossil fuels will further the likelihood of climate-change disaster. Then there is the disastrous potential of leaks of the non-Wiki-variety. (It’s happened before.)
Proponents say the pipeline will ease gas prices and oil “insecurity.” But domestic drilling has raised, not lowered, oil prices, and as for the insecurity — what we need is to develop wiser ways to use the oil we have.
They say, too, that the pipeline could create 100,000 new jobs. But even the Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union oppose the pipeline, saying, “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil.”
Sounds as if union officials have been reading the writer and activist Bill McKibben, who calls the pipeline “a fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent,” and NASA scientist Jim Hansen, who says the oil Keystone will deliver “is essentially game over” for the planet.
Game over? No problem, says the State Department (read the rest below:
Source: NYTimes
What Eric Schneiderman Reveals About Obama (via azspot)
(via azspot)
…I’m genuinely astounded at the pervasive willingness to view what has happened in Libya as some sort of grand triumph even though virtually none of the information needed to make that assessment is known yet, including: how many civilians have died, how much more bloodshed will there be, what will be needed to stabilize that country and, most of all, what type of regime will replace Gadaffi? Does anyone know how many civilians have died in the NATO bombing of Tripoli and the ensuing battle? Does anyone know who will dominate the subsequent regime? Does it matter? To understand how irrational and premature these celebrations are in the absence of that information, I urge everyone to read this brief though amazing compilation of U.S. media commentary from 2003 after U.S. forces entered Baghdad: in which The Liberal Media lavished Bush with intense praise for vanquishing Saddam, complained that Democrats were not giving the President the credit he deserved, and demanded that all those loser-war-opponents shamefully confess their error. Sound familiar?
No matter how moved you are by joyous Libyans (just as one was presumably moved by joyous Iraqis); no matter how heinous you believe Gadaffi was (he certainly wasn’t worse than Saddam); no matter how vast you believe the differences are between Libya and Iraq (and there are significant differences), this specific Iraq lesson cannot be evaded. When foreign powers use military force to help remove a tyrannical regime that has ruled for decades, all sorts of chaos, violence, instability, and suffering — along with a slew of unpredictable outcomes — are inevitable…
There seems to be this sense that while it’s regretful that Obama had to break the law to wage this war, the outcome is so good, the cause was so imperative, that we can accept this.
As someone who spent years arguing literally on a daily basis about Bush’s lawlessness, I can assure you that this rationale was exactly the one offered by Bush followers over and over again…
Glenn Greenwald on Libya
Based on international and Pakistani news reports and research on the ground, the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has issued a new study on civilians killed by American drones, concluding that at least 385 civilians have been killed in the past seven years, including at least 168 children…
An Obama administration official told ABC that these numbers are “way off the mark” — but, tellingly, did so on the condition of anonymity, meaning he or she will be protected from any accountability.
James K. Galbraith (via azspot)
(via azspot)
Radio talker Rush Limbaugh was so alarmed by conservative defections to Obama that he read the riot act to his “ditto heads.” He said it was “maddening” that Obama “is moving right” and sounding as conservative on many things as McCain. To counter these inroads among conservatives, Limbaugh handed down his marching orders: “We have to portray this guy as inexperienced, far leftist, despite what he’s saying about moving to the center.”
According to exit polls, Obama ended up with 20 percent of the conservative vote in 2008.
After the election, many conservatives who thought that Obama’s centrism was a campaign ploy were shocked when he followed through with appointees that could – and often did – hold positions in Republican administrations. Looking at Obama’s national security team, foreign policy hawk Max Boot professed himself “gobsmacked.” Most of them, he admitted, “could just as easily have come from a President McCain.” On economic policy, many conservatives expressed comfort with Obama advisers Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, Austan Goolsbee, and Jason Furman.
Fred Barnes of the right-wing Weekly Standard spoke for many conservatives when on December 8, 2008, he said: “It’s not that Obama, despite his unswervingly liberal record in the Senate, turns out to be a pragmatist. The point is he’s pragmatic (so far) in one direction – rightward. Who knew?”
Obama: The Covert Conservative Liberals Have to Love
In a recent column, I argued that Barack Obama has in practice governed as a moderate conservative. Right wingers were, of course, incredulous, and insisted that he is a far left socialist no matter how thin the evidence. The truth is that Obama has always been moderately conservative – a fact that has been obvious to liberals dating back to the beginning of the 2008 campaign. It would be clear to conservatives as well if they weren’t so blinded by their partisanship and occasionally got their news from an unbiased source.
Dear Bruce Bartlett: We don’t have to love him. — Ryking
“U.S. special ops forces are being deployed in more and more nations — and the public has no idea.”
I read shit like this, and my first reaction is: I don’t want to live in this country anymore.
Is the Obama administration hounding a scientist out of his job on behalf of Big Oil? Looks that way. — Ryking
Crazy is what they do and what they are.
Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.
So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.
The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.
…Mark Feldstein, professor of media at the University of Maryland, sees a worrying trend of espionage prosecutions since President Obama took office.
“To everyone’s surprise, the Obama administration has escalated the war against whistleblowers and the attacks on information that journalists and the public were depending on to get evidence of wrongdoing by powerful institutions and individuals,” Prof Feldstein says.
