Good Thing Harsanyi Is An Op-Ed Columnist and Not a Journalist

If there’s one thing the Cons have demonstrated perfectly for years, it’s that one doesn’t have to think to have an opinion. One should be able to think to form a news story, but this is too often not the case in today’s media world where entertainment corrupts journalism.

Some snippets of what has become standard drivel from Harsanyi:

Dunn went on to assert that when the president “goes on Fox, he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition.” Who knew debating the future of the nation was such a ghastly thought?

In this opinion piece, Harsanyi asks many questions that he should have asked of the Bush “administration” (they weren’t a legitimate administration any more than Fox is a legitimate news source). What about Bush’s policy of establishing invite-only events that were funded by taxpayers? Democrats, Unaffiliateds and Cons alike paid for these events, but only people who agreed not to debate Bush were invited. Bush definitely thought debate was ghastly. Crickets from the right-wingers’ bench.

Just like every other Con whining and gnashing about the obvious unfairness of the Obama administration labeling Fox as opinion-based, Harsanyi wastes plenty of pixels (ink, too) on how anyone could possibly think that the executive branch should be able to decide who’s legitimate and who’s not. Just like every other Con, Harsanyi tries to hide his hypocrisy from public view. Where was his concern when Bush did the exact same thing to MSNBC? More crickets.

T-shirts vs. Guns

Back when Bush was busy running the country into the ground, he had events around the country, kind of like what President Obama is doing today.  There are some important differences, not that the corporate media is going to get into them.  Among them:

Democrats couldn’t attend Bush events if they wore the “wrong” t-shirt.  On more than one occasion, they were removed from the area.  Sometimes, they were removed by people who didn’t have the legal authority to remove them.  More than one spent time in jail.  That’s what “free speech” amounted to in the Bush years: agree with Bush or go to jail.

Right-wing cranks are protesting near Obama events with guns on their hips.  Yes, you read the right: a civilian (not a law enforcement person), with a gun on the hip in a holster.  Are you freaking kidding me?!  Right-wing shock jocks will insist that this person had the undeniable right to exercise his 2nd amendment rights – possibly his 1st amendment rights if they strain really hard.  Um, that’s great.  What about those Democrats who didn’t show up to Bush’s events with anything but a t-shirt?  The Cons didn’t stand up for their rights, did they?  I know what would have happened if a Democratic civilian had showed up to a Bush event with a gun in a holster on their hip, and you should too: they’d have been carted off to Gitmo and withheld indefinitely.  Such is the hypocrisy of the Cons.

[Update]: Cenk Uygur sums it up quicker than I did.  Think a Muslim-American could have been anywhere near a Bush rally with a gun on his hip and a weapons permit?

Bush events were carefully screened so that the Cowardly Boy King didn’t have to face opposition to his bat-shit insane policies.  Every single event for years was screened very carefully.

Americans Favor GHG Regulation, Despite Potential For Higher Energy Costs

A super-majority of Americans support the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by the federal government, while recognizing that doing so might increase energy costs in the short-term.  In other words, the lies perpetrated on the American people by climate change denying Cons and their allies are falling on deaf ears.  Their false messaging is no longer working – Americans are beginning to realize the dangers involved with continuing along the path we’ve been on and are supporting efforts to change to a better path.

To complete the picture, this is all happening despite a profound lack of interaction between even President Obama and Americans, but in a larger sense, climate change realists and Americans.  Very little effort has been made thus far to generate large-scale communication to Americans about the Waxman-Markey climate action plan, for instance.  The wonks are doing their thing in their little bubble and the American people are being left to fend off Con talking points coming from every corporate media source out there.  I know Al Gore and Van Jones and many other individuals are doing their best to educate Americans about the dangers of climate change, but I would feel much more confident about climate change legislation if more large-scale messaging was being conducted.

Back to the primary subject of this post, ABC and the Washington Post conducted a telephone poll from April 21-24 of 1,072 adults.  They were looking for hot-button issues and GHG regulation made the list (I recommend taking a peek at some of the other questions – their wording is absolutely horrible).  The first question and the response breakdown were as follows:

Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?  Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Should: 75%  (strongly: 54%, somewhat: 21%)

Should not: 21%  (strongly: 12%, somewhat: 9%)

No opinion: 4%

Those are pretty strong results considering the amount of money fossil-fuel corporations have blown on full-page newspaper and television advertising.  I would say that as of now, thankfully, they’re not getting their money’s worth.  75% of those polled think GHGs should be regulated.  That’s actually quite amazing taking the entire set of current events into account.

Did John McCain or Sarah Palin Run For President in 2008?

The following is instructive on how schizophrenic the Republicans are right now.  Did John McCain or Sarah Palin run for President this year?  I know Republicans are desperate for any kind of a life preserver following the drubbing Democrats served up this year.  But this is just silly:

NEW: DON’T BLAME ME! I VOTED FOR PALIN
Bumper Stickers!

As taxes go up and guns and freedom go away, you can let the world know that you voted Conservative and that you voted American. Get the “Don’t Blame Me! I Voted For Palin” 2-PACK of Bumper Stickers! FREE SHIPPING Included via First Class Mail!

There’s lots of crappy messaging in this advertisement.  The Cons have been anti-investment for years and look where it’s gotten us: Bush more than doubled the deficit in just 8 short years.  The election demonstrated that Americans are tired of failed Con economic policies.  If Cons don’t want to invest in America, they should stop using the commons.  Otherwise, it’s time to pay for what they use.  That’s patriotic.

The Cons have been screaming about having their guns taken away for decades.  Has it happened?  Of course not.  I will point out that it’s probably a bad idea for citizens to own assault rifles and the like.  I will further point out that in most of the recent shooting rampages across the country in the past 8 years (perpetrated predominantly by white people), the weapons used included semi-automatic and full automatic weapons.  After each event, when multiple people died each time, the NRA and others were quick to jump to the defense of a person’s “right to own” those kinds of weapons.  It’s disgusting, but true.  I don’t think U.S. citizens have a right to own AK-47s, TEC-9s and the like.  The Federal Assault Weapons Ban needs to be revived, strengthened and passed.  I have no problem with citizens owning handguns or rifles that are completely non-automatic.

Under Bush’s totalitarian-like government, U.S. citizens had more rights weakened or stripped than at any other time I’m aware of.  Did the Cons raise their voices in anger when habeus corpus was stripped or when the 4th amendment was gutted?  Of course not.  Note also the ad doesn’t mention which rights might “go away” under an Obama administration.  Deception and fear: two tactics that the Cons use every time they want to control their base.  This is the kind of crap that they’ll hurl at Democrats every day while the Cons are in the minority, regardless of how well Democrats govern.

The cowardly ad tries to continue the Cons’ claim on patriotism.  I don’t think so.  Americans overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama.  Democrats voted just as patriotically as Republicans and others did.  The kind of language used in the ad demonstrates why Obama won.

Sen. Salazar’s Language About Energy All Wrong

CO Sen. Ken Salazar held a press conference yesterday where he tried to talk up President-elect Obama’s energy plan.  Citing the need for a “comprehensive energy strategy” (sort of like his wishes for “bipartisanship”), Salazar made sure to mention the continued use of conventional fuels (fossil fuels) and “clean coal”.  To be quite frank, Obama’s and Salazar’s use of this kind of language completely undermines any message of a new eneryg policy.  They’re using words that the fossil fuel industry prefers.

As I’ll lay out in a number of upcoming posts, our greenhouse gas emissions must decrease in the very near future if we want to avoid sending our climate system into an equilibrium state that does not include ice at the poles and sea level many meters higher than it is today.  The continued use of fossil fuels does not and can not help us change our path from that future.  “Clean coal” is no more realistic than hydrogen fueled vehicles.  Both technologies are decades away from commercail viability, at the earliest.  Using the term “clean coal” allows the coal industry to continue ripping up the earth and emitting Gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, which would force the climate system for hundreds of years to come.

Salazar also brought up oil shale as a potential player in our energy portfolio.  I know Salazar is aware that multiple gallons of water and excessive amounts of fossil-fuel powered energy would be required to pump one gallon of oil from shale.  It makes no sense to burn fossil fuels in order to dig up and burn more fossil fuels.  It makes no sense to waste what little water Colorado and other Western states are likely to receive under a changed climate system to push more fossil fuel out of the ground in order to burn it and force the climate system even further from where it was.  It makes no sense for Salazar to push this untested technology while saying things like:

“The time for talk on energy is over and we need to move forward to get to energy independence,” Salazar said.

Sen. Salazar, talking about “conventional fossil fuel”, “clean coal” and oil shale is not moving us forward toward a new energy policy.  It is more of the same – it prevents a new energy policy from being formed, let alone enacted.  Using the fossil fuel industry’s talking points puts Sen. Salazar, and President-elect Obama, closer to the climate change denier/delayer camp.

An additional non-related example can be found below.

Climate Change and Con-servative “Think Tanks”

As we move toward the upcoming Obama presidency, the most important issue to address will be averting catastrophic climate change.  Obama made clear his intentions to approach energy quite differently than the current “administration” has done.  Instead of corporate welfare giveaways to oil, gas and coal corporations, Obama will work to ensure renewables make up an increasing share of our national energy portfolio.

The same interests that pushed drilling and mining so hard during the Bush administration will not cease their efforts just became Obama has been elected President.  The fossil fuel industry has invested millions of dollars in think propaganda tanks.  Those tanks regularly produce position papers on the “shortcomings” of climate change and its effects.  Here are just a few samplings:

The Cato Institute continues to push its nonsensical opinion that the market will solve everything, just in case peak oil ever occurs, and global warming isn’t real.  Those who continue to blindly follow the free-market faith will increasingly find themselves in a world that has passed them by.  There is no market without government.  A melding of the two are necessary in the effort to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions problem.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is producing ads that deliberately seek to confuse people into thinking that reducing greenhouse gas emissions really means restricting energy access.  What?!?!  No one is proposing anything of the sort.  Climate realists are advocating shifting our fossil fuel-based energy to renewable energy.  There is more than enough renewable energy resources to completely make that shift and stop emitting greenhouse gases.  The costs of doing nothing, by the way, far outweigh anything we do to change our behavior.

Recently, American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Kenneth Green showed how lockstep his propaganda tank was with the remainder of the far-right.  How incapable are these folks from talking about the subject?  So removed that they make up their facts.  In this case, Mr. Green claimed global temperatures recently declined to the same value they were at in 1978.  Few things could be so demonstrably false.  Temperature anomalies have risen since the 1970s quite steadily.  In fact, despite the presence of the most recent La Nina, the past few years’ temperatures continue to make it into the top of the list.  Anything AEI or anyone else says after making things up can’t be seriously entertained in an energy policy discussion.

The time left to change our behavior is running out.  Right-wingers will do everything they can, including lie, distort and distract, to alter the course President-elect Obama and most of the rest of the world want to take.  The good news is there are a growing number of activists that recognize this and are ready to provide support for taking that course.  [big h/t to Climate Progress' Romm]

The “Free Market” Is A Myth

There aren’t many situations that could so clearly demonstrate this than U.S. automakers’ undeniably crappy decisions over the past few decades. While Japanese automakers Toyota and Honda invested in research for more fuel efficient vehicles and brought those vehicles to market despite not making large profits off of them, the big three U.S. automakers instead decided to make overweight monstronsities that as a fleet get the worst mileage in the world.

In the past 2 years or so, it has become … let’s say challenging for the U.S. “Big 3″ to sell their inferior products in a market that is even skewed by our conservative government to help them instead of allowing a level playing field for all manufacturers’ products. Their profits have dried up and their stocks have sunk, in some cases to century-old lows. If it were up to economic forces, like those that the right-wing likes to tout, the market would force them to either change their behavior or fail. Bad businesses fail, correct? Socialism is only for dirty commie liberals, correct? Well, not if those “free-market” loving conservatives and their corporatist Democratic allies have anything to do about it.

You see, while profits from the automakers were always kept private when times were good, those “free-marketeers” are singing a different tune now that the automakers executives’ long history of bad decisions are catching up to them. The losses that those corporations are now facing? Yeah, those losses should be socialized, as automaker lobbyists are now arguing. The automakers want the federal government to bail them out from their self-inflicted misery to the tune of $25 billion, and that’s likely just the beginning. By the way, those loans would be issued at 4.5% interest and the government would have the option of deferring any payment at all for up to five years.

Wow. Those are some really awesome terms. Do you have the same opportunity from banks for your loans? No? You must have the wrong kind of lobbyist. The interest on those loans will be one-third what the corporations are currently paying to borrow. Where is the money coming from? Taxpayers, of course. We get to bail out another inefficient, corporate welfare abusing industry because automakers have donated more money to our elected officials than we have.

It is obvious that conservatives don’t have the courage of their convictions on any number of issues. But few cases are as crystal clear as conservatives’ assertion that the market is “free” and should be as unregulated as possible. If the Big 3 made fundamental business mistakes, shouldn’t they have to live with their actions? It’s what conservatives say any time a person applies for help from the government. Do conservatives want smaller government or don’t they? If corporations get to keep all their profits private while utilizing the commons that we’ve paid for, why should government at any level be forced to give them tax breaks or be pressured to bail corporations out? How is that not interference in the market? No. Conservatives love government when they can squeeze it for more money to cover for their awful decisions. Hypocrites.

Pickens and Schultz: Wind, Natural Gas and Climate Change

So T. Boone Pickens has a new commercial about his grand plan to save us from foreign oil. Wind power is his leading pitch, which given the source should worry all of us. What he’s not touting too loudly in his commercials is the switch from oil to natural gas. And there are reasons he’s not proudly trumpeting that part of it. He’s one more ultra-rich conservative who is trying to make even more money off the rest of us and is too cowardly to fully explain everything up front publicly. Sure, he keeps pointing folks toward his plan on his website. How many people are going to check it out though? What he’s selling on-air and what his plan actually includes are too close to two different things to sell me on it.

Today, Ed Schultz talked extensively about the commercial and the subject. It sounded to me like Ed is ready to take Pickens’ proposal and run with it. His stance is founded from the thought that weaning ourselves off of foreign oil is worth implementing Pickens’ plan. I can respect Ed for having his opinion, but I’m going to share why I think it’s misguided. Here’s the main thrust: are we overly dependent on foreign oil? Yes. Is that the biggest problem facing us this century? Not by a long shot. Climate change easily dwarfs whatever discomfort we’re currently feeling with the price of gas. We currently have the choice to adjust to higher gas prices. Climate change will leave us with an decreasing list of choices to make. And the longer we wait before we tackle it with everything we’ve got, the more expensive in financial and sociological terms it will be.

The wind energy portion of Pickens’ plan is a good idea. Everybody should be climbing on the bandwagon to increase renewable energy development, in both large and small projects. Of course, the larger the better.

It’s the natural gas portion of his plan that makes absolutely no sense. Why would we shift natural gas from electricity generation to transportation? There are two huge problems with the concept. One, natural gas is burned with 3-4X more efficiency in electricity generation than it would in vehicles. Using natural gas for transportation would just waste most of it (80-85%). Based on this then, natural gas should replace dirtier kinds of electricity generation. Coal is the dirtiest form currently used. A moratorium on new coal plants should be implemented nationally. Any plants that are new or would replace a coal plant should produce fewer dangerous emissions. Natural gas is a positive step in that direction. It’s not the final destination by any means, but it would help lower the rate of CO2 emissions going into the climate system in the short- to medium-term future.

Random Pieces 7/24/08

After years of producing vehicles that get better fuel economy for European customers than they did for American customers, Ford is finally going to retool American factories to produce and sell the same vehicles stateside. This comes as Ford struggles to reduce costs and just posted its worst quarter in its 105-year history. Ford lost $8.7 billion in its 2nd quarter.

***

The paragon of personal responsibility, Rush Limbaugh, tried to take Sen. Ken Salazar to task over oil-shale drilling saying Salazar “and his fellow Democrats are still preventing America from using our own resources to lower gas prices and create new jobs”. No Rush, it’s been conservative blowhards like yourself that have prevented policies that would keep gas prices low. If renewable energy research had received any fraction of the corporate welfare dollars handed over to oil corporations in the past 30 years, US consumers would be demanding far less oil and gas. Oh, and more and better paying jobs would have been created along the line too.

Way to take responsibility for policies you’ve advocated for, Rush.

It’s interesting to note how conservatives are pushing for drilling when the technology to do so isn’t perfect yet. They’re taking the opposite stance with regard to global warming by saying we shouldn’t take action until technologies (models) are perfect. Drilling through shale and off our coasts will not reduce the price of gas. Part of the problem getting that message across exists within consumers: they want instant gratification and drilling sounds like it might deliver. So they’ll support it without thinking of the problems.

***

Terrorism Funds Doing What?!

A good example of how oversight is sorely needed:

The Air Force’s top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on “comfort capsules” to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world, with at least four top generals involved in design details such as the color of the capsules’ carpet and leather chairs, according to internal e-mails and budget documents.

Would anybody like to tell me how this is making me safer?