June 24th, 2008 11:33pm
admin
Let’s leave aside how unlikely it is that permitting new oil drilling off the shores of the United States will reduce gas prices in the near future — or, in fact, ever. We can treat that argument as moot because offshore drilling simply isn’t going to happen in the near future, even if a new federal law is passed to allow it.
And the politicians pushing for new offshore drilling know it’s not going to happen. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, speaking on Meet the Press on Sunday, was very careful to use phrases like “with state consent” and “if the states consent” when talking about new offshore drilling, because he wants citizens who are on the fence about the new law to know there’ll be no new rigs along the coastlines of their own individual states if they and their neighbors don’t want them.
Just how disengenuous is Graham’s support for new offshore drilling “if the states consent”? Graham knows for a fact that people in his own state — my home state of South Carolina — don’t want new oil rigs off our coast. On Meet the Press, host Brian Williams (filling in for the late, great Tim Russert) quotes Graham himself via The Greenville News, speaking in 2005:
All of our coastal communities I’ve talked with believe offshore drilling would be a detriment to our economy along the coast. I tend to agree with that.
It’s the same NIMBY principle that comes into effect every time the issue of new prisons arises: everybody agrees we need to build more prisons, as long as they’re Not in My Backyard.
Likewise, it’s easier for concerned citizens to swallow the idea of new offshore oil rigs, as long as they’re built off someone else’s shore. NIMBY. And as long as we’re all waiting for some other state to approve offshore drilling we don’t want in our own states, it’s not going to happen. And Graham knows it.
Even if new offshore drilling didn’t require state consent, it’s unlikely there’ll be any new rigs off the U.S. coast any time soon, because the oil companies don’t want to drill there any time soon. Oil companies already have leases on nearly 70 million acres they’re not drilling. When asked why those resources aren’t being tapped, oil companies themselves actually have the gall to poormouth us, saying they can’t do it because they don’t have the equipment. If they’re not sinking their record-shattering profits during this oil crisis into the equipment they need to get at more oil on existing leases, what on earth makes anyone think they’ll invest in entirely new rigs on offshore leases? They won’t. Not in the near future. It’s not going to happen, and the oil companies know it.
And there’s another angle: A friend of mine recently speculated that that the only reason oil companies aren’t already sinking new rigs off shore — or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) — is not that they can’t get the necessary approval, but because they don’t want to drill there. That might sound far-fetched, almost like a conspiracy theory, but I think he’s got a point. Who believes the environmental lobby could have prevented the oil industry from getting anything it wanted in all the years we had George W. Bush in the White House and a rubber-stamp Republican majority in the House and Senate? If they didn’t get it, says my friend, maybe it’s because they don’t want it. It’s worth thinking about.
At any rate, new offshore drilling isn’t going to happen in the near future whether this law is passed or not. And, yeah — the oil companies and politicians like Lindsey Graham know it.
So why are so many Republicans pushing the idea? Because there’s an election in less than five months, and they don’t care about pushing for solutions that have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually lowering gas prices; they just want the appearance of action. They want to be able to say “When gas prices topped four dollars a gallon, I voted to do something about it, and my opponent voted to do nothing.”
They want a sound bite, not a solution. Given the choice, they’ll always go for the sound bite.
May 19th, 2008 12:47pm
admin
This is what Senator Hillary Clinton had to say on Saturday regarding her inexplicably continuing campaign to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president:
And you know, all those people on TV who are telling you and everybody else that this race is over, and I should, you know, just be, you know, graceful and say ‘Oh, it’s over,’ even though I’ve won more votes…um…those are all people who have a job, those are all people who have health care, those are all people who can afford to send their kids to college, those are all people who can pay whatever is charged at the gas pump. They’re not the people I’m running to be a champion for.
So that’s the Clinton campaign’s latest New Strategy of the Week: Pretend the only people who want her to admit defeat and bow out of the race are Washington insider fat cats who’ve lost touch with the concerns of the common man.
The problem is this: The common man has already, emphatically said he doesn’t want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president. The common man and common math, in fact; barring some shady delegate dealings that override the will of the people as they’ve expressed it in caucuses and primaries across the country, it’s now a simple, mathematical impossibility for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. In fact, her claim to having “won more votes” than Barack Obama is so deeply disingenuous, it might as well be an outright lie: The only way she beats Barack Obama in the popular vote is if you count the Michigan Democratic primary, where Obama was not even on the ballot because he respected the Democratic Party’s decision to disqualify that primary for violating the party’s rules.
Which brings us to the amazing hypocrisy of Hillary’s new tactic: She’s framing herself as the people’s candidate, the anti-insider, when the only way she can win the nomination is through some serious insider politics at the Democratic National Convention in August. The kind of insider politics that would disenfranchise millions of people who voted for Obama.
Is this the same Senator Clinton who, in late November 2000, in the face of a farcical election that eventually led to a conservative Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush president, called for an end to the Electoral College system? The same Senator Clinton who said “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people” and “I hope no one is ever in doubt again about whether their vote counts”?
If she meant what she said in 2000, then it’s time for her to bow out. The people have spoken, and we don’t want her to be the Democratic nominee. It’s time for her to show that she respects our decision and wants our votes to count. It’s time for her to throw her support behind Barack Obama and ensure that most of the people who voted for her in the primaries will vote for him in November.
When this process began, I was sure Hillary would be the Democratic nominee. I really liked Obama and what he had to say, but like most observers at the time, I didn’t think primary voters would bet on this younger, less experienced guy’s ability to win the general election. As I’ve watched these two candidates campaign, though, and seen the things Hillary has been willing to do and say in her attempt to secure the nomination, I’ve become delighted to see Obama taking both the high road and the lead in the race.
Obama’s going to be our nominee, and he can beat McCain. It’s high time Senator Clinton got behind him. The fact is, if she doesn’t do it soon, she’s only hurting her own shot at being the Democratic candidate in 2016.
Oh, and by the way, Hillary: As a self-employed writer/editor, I currently have no health care. And I’m very concerned about the cost of gas. And yeah…I think you should step down. Right now.
January 7th, 2007 07:53pm
admin
Our Democrats officially took control of the House and Senate last week, so naturally the Bush Administration is scrambling to look like it has a new plan for Iraq, trying desperately to keep half a step ahead of the new congressional leaders’ inevitable calls for hearings, for caps on troop levels and funding, and for an end to the occupation that has this country hemorrhaging money and squandering the lives of thousands of soldiers who only asked one thing of their commander in chief: Don’t send us to kill and die for no good reason.
The majority voice in our legislative branch is finally going to be one that speaks of accountability in Iraq and demands to know just how the president defines this “victory” he continually insists we can attain if we just hold out a little longer. The public’s true representatives are going to be saying, with more authority behind them than ever, that Bush does not have a plan.
So now — finally — Bush is working toward appearing to give a damn about his war. Unfortunately, all he and his advisers seem to care about is appearance.
What’s this new plan Bush is about to announce to the nation? From all accounts, it centers on sending more U.S. troops to Iraq. As many as five brigades and two battalions, or 20,000 soldiers.
That’s the plan. The same administration that insisted all along we had enough troops in Iraq is now planning to send tens of thousands more. Let’s see if we can break down some of the key ways that’s insane:
When General Shinseki insisted that we weren’t sending enough troops, he was ignored. Now Bush has decided we need more troops. In fact, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham — the guy who looks so much like a parody of a Republican as played by Kids in the Hall’s Dave Foley — said on today’s Meet the Press that “Shinseki was right.”
Oh. Maybe you guys shouldn’t have fired him, huh?
Speaking of what happens to generals who say things Bush doesn’t want to hear: The president himself has said, very clearly, that he listens to his generals. That it’s General Casey, not George Bush, who decides how many troops we need in Iraq.
But apparently that’s only true until General Casey disagrees with Bush. Casey and General Abizaid have both said they don’t believe an increase in troops will significantly improve the current situation in Iraq. They say the last thing we need when we’re trying to get Iraqi troops to stand up — “So we can stand down,” remember, Mister President? — is to send more U.S. troops to Iraq. So how does this president who claims to listen to his generals respond? By sending more troops to Iraq. And sending new generals to run things there.
Sen. Graham said today (again on Meet the Press) that the “work product” of Generals Casey and Abizaid has to be considered, as if our failure in Iraq is all their fault. That’s roughly equivalent to calling an expert plumber to your house, insisting that he does everything your way despite his warnings to the contrary, and then blaming him when you find yourself up to your ass in dirty water.
So why does Bush’s new plan amount — pretty literally — to more of the same? Why is it so plainly irrational and hypocritical? Because what President George W. Bush wants more than victory, more than democracy in Iraq, more than a secure U.S., more than an end to the daily U.S. casualties, is to avoid giving an inch to his critics. This war began as a product of Bush’s enormous, soap-bubble ego, and it will linger on — despite the terrible costs and despite all expert advice to the contrary — as a result of that ego.
It’s clear that Bush’s only definition of victory in Iraq at this point is simply to hang on until the end of his term without ever admitting he was wrong — and damn the cost in money and lives and limbs. The most honest thing this man has ever said about the war is that it will probably be up to his successor to decide how it ends.
Sen. Graham (still in office, because here in my once and current home state, reason didn’t play so well last November) says the president is right: Despite what the president himself has said countless times before, we need more troops on the ground. But does he — or any of his pro-war colleagues who continually use that shopworn phrase — ever think about the fact that “more troops on the ground” ultimately means more troops in the ground? Every word that comes from the Bush administration and the supporters of this war suggests that they have spent very little time thinking about the real, inevitable cost of this new “surge” strategy.
October 17th, 2006 05:58pm
admin
Make a note of today’s date. It will go down as a dark day in U.S. history. Today is the day George W. Bush and his rubber-stamp Republican Congress murdered habeas corpus and approved torture.
You should read for yourself the Associated Press’s coverage of Bush’s signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. You should know exactly what this new law allows the government to do. But here’s the gist of it:
You can now be taken into custody on U.S. soil and imprisoned indefinitely, with no opportunity to face your accusers and defend yourself in court. (Say goodbye to habeas corpus, a concept of human rights so basic it predates the U.S. Constitution by more than a century.)
You can be tortured by your captors. Any information coerced from you by torture will be admissible in your trial — when and if you get a trial.
If you get a trial, it will be a military tribunal. (Never mind that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that illegal back in June — this new law says it’s legal.)
And when you’re convicted on the basis of something you may only have said to make the torture stop, you can be put to death.
All legal. In the United States. As of today. The only requirement is that you be designated an enemy combatant in Bush’s war on terror.
Before you say “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about,” ask yourself if you honestly believe that everyone accused of a crime is guilty. And think about the harsh words Bush and other members of the GOP have had for people who “give aid and comfort to the enemy” merely by criticizing the war. Or for the whistle-blowers and reporters who uncovered Bush’s illegal domestic spying program or the CIA’s secret prisons overseas. Are you absolutely certain where they’ll draw the line? Can you say with confidence that only Bad People will ever be affected by this new law?
October 11th, 2006 02:17pm
admin
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists reports that about 655,000 more Iraqis have died since the invasion of Iraq than would have died if the invasion hadn’t happened.
Six hundred fifty-five thousand people. Enough men, women, and children to fill the Superdome ten times over. Dead.
Bush was quick to respond: “I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence.”
I’m sure that’s a great comfort.
October 7th, 2006 10:20pm
admin
I recently learned that my cholesterol is up in the “you need to do something about this right now” range, so I’ve vowed to eat lots of low-fat, high-fiber foods.
Oatmeal was recommended. I hate oatmeal. I hate the texture. That squishy, sticky, mouthful-of-evil texture. But I’d heard it was great for getting your cholesterol under control, and I’d seen TV ads for a new kind from Quaker that comes with a little crunchy granola cereal to sprinkle over it. I thought that might make it palatable, so I gave it a shot.
I was wrong.
I still hate oatmeal. No amount of crunchy stuff on top can mitigate the vomitous morass that lurks underneath.
I’m determined to eat more healthily and bring down my calamitous cholesterol. But I ain’t doing it with oatmeal.
October 6th, 2006 02:28pm
admin
Every city or county has its share of bail companies. But here in South Carolina’s upstate, a local company advertises on TV with the slogan “We Ain’t Mad Atcha.”
I love it.
September 9th, 2006 01:48pm
admin
Naaaaaah.
Not if you conveniently leave most of the casualties out of your official count.
Hm…now, what was the name of that other war where military officials manipulated body counts to make our efforts appear successful?
August 27th, 2006 05:08am
admin
Nearly a month ago, I wrote a post about finding what looked like a giant, fuzzy ant in my driveway.
Today, I checked the statistics for this blog. For the month of August — so far — that post accounts for 20 of the 30 web-search hits that led someone to my humble blog. Not my brilliant, carefully reasoned political posts. Not my musings about returning to the South.
No. Not counting generous links from friends’ blogs, the single thing that’s brought the most people here to Back in the Red has been my post about that big insect.
Hm. I don’t really have a good conclusion for this post — because, after all, what conclusion am I supposed to draw from this?
August 27th, 2006 01:08am
admin
I think it’s time I addressed something that drives me nuts about “Cops” and other law enforcement reality shows. And that’s how cops always end statements to perpetrators with “okay?”
They could be talking to a guy who just ran sixteen red lights, drove 90 miles an hour against freeway traffic, and smashed into a bus full of blind children, and they’d still end every sentence with “okay?” — as in:
“I’m going to search your car now, okay?”
“I’m going to arrest you now for resisting arrest, DWI, and vehicular assault, okay?”
“Well, since you can’t tell me your cousin’s last name, I have to assume this duffel bag full of severed limbs is yours, okay?”
Just once, I’d like to see someone say “Well, no. It’s not okay. I mean, as long as you’re asking my opinion, I’d rather you didn’t arrest me. I have to work in the morning. And besides, I don’t think spending a night in jail would be as much fun as I’m already having, sucking on this fifth of Jack Daniel’s and mumbling Beatles lyrics to my switchblade.”
But alas, nobody ever has the presence of mind to say that. They’re all too busy being shirtless and bleeding and asking the cops to pull up their boxers for them.
We need a better class of miscreant.
Previous Posts