Climate Bill Passes by an All-Too-Thin Margin

The U.S. House of Representatives just passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by a margin of seven votes, 219 to 212. Kudos to Chairmen Waxman and Markey for taking the lead on the most crucial issue of the next several generations, the threat of global climate change. Many perceive the issue as an environmental one, and one that is only a victory for "environmentalists." But that couldn't be further from the truth.

As I have touched on many times, climate change is an all-encompassing issue that threatens a seemingly endless variety of other issues. You might personally believe that healthcare, civil liberties, war, or any number of other issues is a bigger priority than climate change, a supposedly futuristic notion predicated upon shaky science. But every issue being debated in the United States today can in some way be connected to climate change—or at least related policies.

Tom Friedman wrote in Tuesday's Times that weaning ourselves off of oil could serve to undermine oppressive oil-rich regimes in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Many countries rich from oil use their profits to invest in nuclear weapons or fund terrorism. Anyone care to do something about nukes and terrorists? Isn't that why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan (or at least Afghanistan)? Isn't that why we're so frightened of Iran?

If we don't address climate change, the healthcare issue will only be exacerbated. Airborne diseases will increase with increased temperatures, including potential epidemics for which we are ill prepared.

If we don't address climate change, refugees of floods, droughts, and desertified lands will try to flee to other countries to rebuild their lives, and as we see all over Africa and Asia, an increase in ethnically diverse populations in economically depressed regions competing for the same jobs and resources tends to lead to intrastate conflict that can easily spread across borders. Want to help prevent war? Help prevent climate change.

Even the agricultural community in the United States, who lobbied hard enough to essentially fend off any potential regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector, would be drastically affected by even a minor change in temperature and climate conditions. But the major problem here is that no one thinks in the long term.

And that is exactly why Republicans, only eight of whom voted for the legislation today, are able to exploit it for political gains. 'It only amounts to a tax,' they say. 'It will only hurt American business and force consumers to pay more for their heat, power, and gasoline.' For them, it's not about preventing disaster across the world. It's about winning back a Republican majority in the United States Congress by exploiting myopic concerns. But climate change is not just an environmental issue, and it's sure not a partisan issue. It has somehow devolved into both over the course of the debate on regulation, and will inevitably cause forward-thinking politicians to lose their seats. This is the unfortunate reality in a democracy like ours of standing up for what is right, even if it may not be exceptionally popular in the short run.

So the Waxman-Markey bill, even though it was watered down excessively to cater to wealthy businesses and utilities and power-wielding lobbyists, has finally passed. No one knows if it will accomplish anything near what scientists say we need to. But at least it's a start. And now the issue will move on to the Senate, where it will be diluted even more, and progress will only be hindered further. In 40 years, we'll all look back at this and wonder how we could have been so ignorant. Those who opposed the bill are on the wrong side of history, just as the anti-civil rights folks were in the '50s and '60s. But in the realm of climate change, by the time that fact is universally accepted, it could very well be too late.

Images: Climate rally outside Capitol (Wall Street Journal), Ahmadinejad in front of oil refinery (New York Times), Republican opponents to ACES (TreeHugger)

RIght-Wingers vs. Right-Wingers

Frank Rich had a very insightful op-ed in the Times yesterday on the hatred that percolates from the right wing in the United States. Indeed, while conservative policies are often deleterious to average Americans, we find huge swaths of support for such policies in public polls, thanks largely to the masterful messaging of political conservatives, messages often predicated upon fear and hatred.

Recently, conservatives have evoked the notion of progressive policies being similar to the policies of Hitler, in an ironic twist of logic. And lo and behold, we find the same sort of demagoguery coming from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is attributing "Hitler-style techniques" to his political rivals. It is no coincidence that conservatives in the United States and conservatives in Iran are using similar tactics to manipulate their electorates. They are both understandably successful at garnering support after using such fear-inducing language (I still find it painfully hypocritical, though, that Ahmadinejad evokes Hitler as an epitomization of evil while continuing to deny the Holocaust).

One glaring consequence of this extremist conservatism is that as it intensifies and gains influence, in whatever country, it makes the world a more hate-filled and consequently dangerous place. Since his groundbreaking speech in Cairo, Obama has been barraged by conservatives as being too "apologetic" to the Muslim world. In his speech, however, he not only made no semblance of an apology, but addressed the need for Middle Eastern nations to reject authoritanism and establish true democracies, governmental shifts that would serve to weaken the hate-mongering right wing extremists in those countries. Yet the analogous extremists in the United States, who purport to cherish freedom and democracy, decry the President for his less-than-hawkish tone, calling him weak and ultimately harmful for America.

As these extremists convince their fellow citizens to elect politicians who espouse their views—as they have in the cases of George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Ahmadinejad, and recently Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman in Israel—the inflammatory tone in each of these countries is increasingly amplified, until a tipping point is reached. In the case of Israel and Iran, frighteningly enough, that tipping point could come in the form of war, and even nuclear war.

Politicians like Obama, who are wise to strike a more tempered tone, help to ease some of the tensions, anger, and hatred that can so easily be tapped for political gain. While Obama may receive criticism for his words, he is ultimately making the world a more peaceful place. He is helping to avoid the unnecessary violence brought about by right-wingers who, in their hatred for right-wingers in other nations, engage in an arms race, both figuratively and literally, sending the level of discourse spiralling downward and increasing the propensity for confrontation and war. Too often, people believe that the only way to deal with incendiary leaders like Ahmadinejad is to elevate incendiary leaders of our own. But maybe the path to world peace is by backing away from the "tough guy" persona and actually engaging our supposed enemies.

Images: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (truthdig.com), nuclear warhead (howstuffworks.com), Obama in Egypt (publicradio.org)

Kristol Monday: The Last One

It's a bittersweet day for me, as I just found out that Bill Kristol has written his final column for the New York Times. It's sweet in that the country will not be exposed to his illogical arguments and one-sided "conservatives are always right" attitude, but also bitter because who will I trash on Mondays now? In order to give him the proper send-off, I'm going to rip his final column a new one.

To begin with, Kristol states that January 20, 2009 marked the "end of a conservative era." He cited Gingrich as the carrier of the torch for this "era" during the Clinton years, negating 8 years of a liberal president with a family-values conservative who cheated on his second wife while at the same time spearheading the impeachment of Bill Clinton for cheating on his (talk about sticking to your principles!). But if Gingrich is a continuance of Bush I and keeps the '90s conservative in Kristol's view, does Tip O'Neil get any recognition as a continuance of Carter and having a liberal effect in the '80s (with extra points for not being an adulterer)?

But there are more Kristol gems: "Over the next three decades, it was modern conservatism, led at the crucial moment by Ronald Reagan, that assumed the task of defending liberty with strength and confidence." Are we forgetting the Soviet-Afghan War and the rise of the Taliban and bin Laden with CIA money? Are we forgetting the Contras in Nicaragua and the money from Iranian arms sales (and as we know, Kristol hates Iran)? Or how Reagan increased government spending, yet is a hero to conservatives? Come on.

Then Kristol pulls the "if you disagree with me (i.e. "conservatism") then you are un-American" when he says: "Obama’s speech was unabashedly pro-American and implicitly conservative." So being pro-American is implying that one is really being conservative? One cannot love his or her country without subscribing to the Republican viewpoint? If I say we should not have sacrificed over 4,000 American servicemen and women in Iraq for a war based on false pretenses, does that make me un-American? If I say we should follow the Constitution - the very basis of this great nation - by not torturing or holding people in prisons without the right to a trial does that make me un-American? I thought we were done with this passive agressive name-calling, but leave it to Kristol to bring us right back down to the gutter.


So long, Bill Kristol. I wish we could say we hardley knew ye, but you made sure we heard you. While you may make outlandish statements like "Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years have a fair amount to be proud of," without using any evidence to back it up, in your head you're always right and anyone else who says otherwise is just a liberal. Now that McCain lost to Obama and your post as Republican Party cheerleader will do little to help your stature as being part of the ruling party, you can act like the sore loser at the playground, take your ball and go home. Peace.

Photo - Bill Kristol (New York Times)

Kristol Monday: More War Drum Beating for Iran

Brill Kristol never ceases to amaze. This week's column was basically last week's column, only instead of talking about Hamas and Israel before making it sound like war with Iran is inevitable, he talked about Obama and how much of a politician he is before saying war with Iran is inevitable. For some reason Kristol's absolute and utter desire to go to war with Iran remains as strong as ever and he is using his column at the New York Times to start drumming up support for military action against the Middle Eastern nation.

First, though, let's look at the beginning of his column (after he makes some lame jokes about the Obama family's choice of a family pet). Kristol slams Obama for not fully breaking from the Bush Administration in terms of foreign relations. This is fair, as the barometer for dealing with other nations on earth should be look at what Bush and Co. did, then do the opposite. But here is the irony in Kristol's statement: he has been a cheerleader of the Bush Administration from Iraq to defending the indefensible Dick Cheney. So to slam Obama for not breaking with Bush's policies (he's not even in office yet, so if you're going to call him a grandstander and someone who only has rhetoric, wait until he is in office and judge his actions, not his words) is to say, "Hey, you suck because you're continuing to do what I think is right, even though I slammed you for saying you wouldn't do what I think is right a few months ago and now you're saying you're going to do what I think is right but I'm still going to find a reason to slam you." Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Bill Kristol's war advice is well documented (see my post here). Why would he think anyone cares what he thinks about engagement (military or otherwise) in the Middle East? He must suffer from the same grand delusion that I do when I think people read and care about my writing. But in all seriousness, Kristol is not the man to turn to when it comes to diplomatic advice. It all goes back to the snake bite analogy; maybe cutting off my leg is a good idea because of the horrible situation I'm in now, but if I hadn't listened to you in the first place I wouldn't be here thinking about cutting my damn leg off. Kristol used all of his "Listen to me" points with Iraq. With such a war-weary population in America, the last thing anyone should be advocating is military action against a large nation like Iran. But Kristol and common sense are like water and oil; they just don't mix. I guess we'll have to wait until next week to see what topic Kristol discusses before trying to convince people that we need to go to war with Iran. Peace.

Photos - Bill Kristol (ThinkProgress)

Next They'll Be Calling Them Freedom Fighters

If you have not read Seymour Hersh's article in the latest New Yorker, do it. If you were alive during the 1980s you may think that Hersh's article is merely a history lesson from the Reagan era, complete with toppling Iranian governments, CIA-funded middle eastern minority factions, and moronic decisions coming from the White House. Alas, Hersh's article is a startling look at America's covert operations in Iran meant to destabilize the ruling government to make an invasion easier on the ground. What is even more worrisome is that Congress's intelligence leaders - a group Hersh calls the Gang of Eight - know little about the program, thus allowing the Bush administration to wield unchecked power (kind of like in late 2002 and early 2003 leading up to the Iraq War).

To begin with, to invade Iran would be a grievous mistake. It would prove that the leaders of the current administration have learned absolutely nothing from the situation in Iraq. One would think that Vietnam would be an indication that America should stop fucking with other parts of the world where it has no business, but if that is not enough, then Iraq should certainly prove to be sufficient evidence. But when you're as thick-headed as Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration, logic is as scarce as cheap gas. Hence, the step-up of covert ops in Iran.

The most mind-boggling part of all of this is the complete and utter resemblance it has to Reagan's mistakes of the 1980s. Where do you think the Taliban and Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda came from? If you think they just popped out of the blue in the early 1990s and came to existence solely to do harm to the United States for no reason, then I truly feel sorry for you. With the millions and millions of dollars pumped through Pakistani intelligence to Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviets, the Taliban formed, followed by Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. Washington's logic was that both the United States and the ultra-extremist (and America-hating) "freedom fighters" both wanted the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It's middle school philosophy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But 9/11 showed us how flawed Reagan's logic was. Without American help in the Middle East, Bin Laden and company would not have existed. Bin Laden has been kicked out of every country in the Middle East; only the Taliban (formed with American help) would accept this wealthy outcast. So he sets up shop in the tunnels of Tora Bora (again, with American help) and plots his revenge on America (who left him and his new country in ruins once the Soviets were defeated).

So what do we do in 2008? We pump money into minority factions, just like Reagan did in the 1980s, in order to fight a common enemy using the same philosophy, even after it proved tragically wrong on 9/11. The funny thing is, the 2008 case is almost a carbon copy of the 1980s. Instead of Khomeini spouting anti-American rhetoric to stir the masses, we have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (both figures were inspired to rail against America due to CIA reasons - Khomeini because of revelations that the CIA and Israeli intelligence helped form and fund the oppresive, brutal secret police of the Shah [SAVAK] and now Ahmadinejad due to covert American ops in Iran's borders). Replace the mujahideen, Reagan's "freedom fighters," with new minority groups like the Kurds and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. Replace the setting of Afghanistan's mountains to the deserts of Iran. Brilliant.

Let's look at one of the factions we are funding: the Kurds. The Kurds are a significant minority spread throughout northern Iraq, western Iran, and southern Turkey. The Kurds probably do not like America too much due to our dealings with Turkey allowing Turkish forces to enter soveriegn Iraqi land to attack Kurdish extremists (some of whom we are now currently funding). Just like the mujahideen, the Kurds are not America's biggest fans. When all is over and the proverbial dust settles, the Kurds will want America to set up a Kurdistan, just like Britain set up Israel for the Jews. However, America will not set up a Kurdistan because it will bring more instability to the region, just like Israel did. Turkey will be pissed, as will Iraq (though by then we will have set up a puppet government to do whatever Washington wanted) and Iran will be in pieces and won't have time to deal with the headache. We'll be there for decades trying to sort shit out, or we'll leave after stirring the shit beyond recognition and wait 12-15 years for a major terrorist attack to happen on American soil to realize we made a huge mistake. Either scenario is unacceptable.

If Cheney, Rove, and company are not going to be put in jail, they should at least be forced to read a history book. Of course, Bush's legacy will be forever stained by the leeches he surrounded himself with. Bush is not bright enough to come up with all of this (look at his one piece of legislation - No Child Left Behind - that was his pet project). Of course, what can you expect when you surround yourself with Nixon-era crooks (Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular). To end this post I will quote Immortal Technique on a song from his new mixtape: "The government pimped 9/11 to go to Iraq / And now history repeats itself right on track / Cuz it's a tragedy and then the comedy begins / Because it's funny motherfuckers don't see it come around again." Peace.

Photos - Two men making a huge mistake (Time), Bin Laden, whose power is arguably a product of disastrous American foreign policy during the Reagan/Bush era (Encyclopedia Britannica), Neo-Cons, a major threat to American security (Writing Shop)

Bush Takes Subliminal Shot at Democrats, Further Hones his Hypocrisy

As this country's blind loyalty to Israel continues, George W. Bush aired out some of America's political dirty laundry in front of a foreign nation and the backlash has been severe (and warranted). In a Knesset speech on May 15, 2008 Bush compared the policies of "some" in American politics who have stated that we should open up diplomatic relations with nations like Iran or territories like Palestine to those involved with Nazi appeasement in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It was then later acknowledged by White House staffers that these comments were directed at prominent American figures like Barack Obama and former President Jimmy Carter. Obama has been vocal about his support to sit down and open up diplomatic relations with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Carter has pushed for negotiations with Hamas. President Bush has said that no "ingenious argument" will cause the violent tendencies of these groups to cease. Of course, this is coming from a president who doesn't even try diplomacy and has plunged this country into a five year war in Iraq that has undoubtedly destabilized a massive region of the Middle East. On the other side of Bush's argument is a president who put his ass on the line to reach the Camp David Accords with Middle Eastern countries without having to fire a shot, but Bush does not like, as we were told do to in kindergarten, to "use his words."

The facts are clear: Ahmadinejad is nuts. Hamas seems pretty determined to get rid of Israel. One link is missing here, however. Bush continues to alienate these factions by refusing to talk with them and instead using the neo-conservative rhetoric of preemptive military action (thanks Wolfowitz) instead of using good old-fashioned diplomacy. It could be that diplomacy will not work, but how will we ever know if we do not try? Sure, GE and Northrup-Grumman won't be getting multi-billion dollar government contracts for defense spending, but thousands of lives could be saved and maybe the rest of the world won't look at America as an arrogant, war-mongering country.

Beyond the politics of everything, however, lays a deeper layer of hypocrisy. To begin with, George W. Bush appears to be a born-again Christian. Christians, for the most part, believe that those who do not seek salvation in Jesus Christ and take him as their savior as mortals here on Earth will perish in the depths of hell for eternity. Thus, as Bush was speaking to a group of Israelis - the majority of whom were probably Jewish - his beliefs and faith dictated that they were all going to hell for not recognizing that Jesus was the son of God and salvation is found in undying devotion and faith in him. I do not see myself as a Christian scholar at all, but from going to church as a kid (where the teachers specifically told my brother that his Jewish friends were going to hell when he asked about them) and from reading parts of the Bible, this is what I have gleaned.

Then there is the Prescott Bush connection. Bush, of course, is father to George H. W. Bush and grandfather to George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was a major businessman and American senator in the first part of the 20th century in America. Prescott Bush also was linked to numerous German companies who both financed Hitler's rise to power and the rearming of the German state (in direct defiance of the Treaty of Versailles), as well as benefited from Nazi slave labor at the beginning of World War II. It was at this point that the U.S. government stepped in and seized the assets under the Trading with the Enemy Act, established during the Great War. In addition to all of this, Bush was involved in a plot to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933 and establish a fascist state in America based on Hitler's and Mussolini's model in order to combat the Great Depression. So while Obama and Carter may want to sit down and talk with leaders like Ahmadinejad and groups like Hamas, they still oppose what they do and are not supporting them - financially or otherwise - like George W. Bush's own grandfather did with Hitler's Nazism. I understand that you cannot choose your family, but if Bush wants to compare Obama to Hitler appeasers, then he should at least condemn his grandfather's actions prior to (and during) World War II.

Thus, despite George W. Bush's pledge to keep himself out of the 2008 presidential race, he has thrust himself into it. While McCain did not compare Obama to the Western powers that appeased Hitler prior to World War II (the American government being one of them), he did say that Obama was "naive" and "inexperienced" because he wanted to try out diplomacy before, in McCain's own songful words, "bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb[ing] Iran" if necessary. Beyond the complete idiocy and divisiveness of Bush's words, it is completely inappropriate to put down another member of the American government in front of a foreign gathering for political purposes. This is one of the reasons that people think Americans have little class, as Bush appears to be just like school in the summertime (no class). I think in the end, this might hurt the Republicans because it is very extreme to invoke Hitler into modern day politics in any light. To compare one of the more liberal presidential candidates in a long time to one who would appease Hitler is out there and really does not make sense. But Bush is not exactly one to follow that fickle law of "logic." Peace.

Photos - Bush before Israel's Knesset on May 15 (www.bloomberg.com), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran (www.msnbc.msn.com), Prescott Bush and George W. Bush (www.tsl.state.tx.us)

No More Iranian Nukes Four Years Ago

President Ahmadinejad of Iran (BBC)

Today the US revealed that Iran has stopped pursuing nuclear weapons. The problem? The report is four years late.

The report states that Iran had ceased to pursue nuclear weapons technology back in 2003. This is quite troubling, as US intelligence reports dated after 2003 strongly claimed that Iran was actively, if not aggressively, pursuing a nuclear weapons program and that this was a direct threat to America.

Take a report dated August 23, 2006. It states: "Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and despite its claims to the contrary, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons." This, of course, is highly embarrassing in one of two ways. Either the United States has been lying to us for the past four years or our intelligence gathering is so weak that it takes four years to find out that something has occurred. I do not know which one is worse.

Stephen Hadley (USIP)

Of course, the 2006 report could just be what the government fed to us, the electorate, to keep us in fear of Iran (do not forget that midterm elections were coming in November and campaigning was well under way). Take this quote from the report: "This report provides an unclassified assessment of the Iran question to help the American public understand the seriousness of the Iranian threat and to discuss ways U.S. intelligence collection and analysis against Iran must be improved." It is wholly possible that there was plenty of classified information regarding the actuality of Iran's nuclear weapons program (or, as it turns out, lack thereof).

But there is another quote in the report that supports the second of my aforementioned theories: "There is a great deal about Iran that we do not know...A special concern is major gaps in our knowledge of Iranian nuclear, biological, and chemical programs." If, as this report states, we know so little about Iranian nuclear weapons procurement, how can we (in the same report, mind you) claim that Iran was, without a doubt and over the country's insistence that it was not, developing nuclear weapons?

But, do not forget, just because Iran is four years out of trying to get nuclear weapons does not mean that they are not a major threat to America, according to Stephen Hadley (U.S. National Security adviser). This, despite the NIE's report (the most recent one) stating: "Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously." Diplomacy: it might actually be worth a try.

So, it appears that the inevitablity of Iranian nuclear holocaust may not be so inevitable, but the war drum continues to beat in the White House. Even if Iran had developed a nuclear weapon, the US would still outnumber them by 5,736 active nuclear warheads (hell, we can't even keep track of them and store them properly.) While I hate citing Wikipedia, the opening sentence of its article on nuclear weapons and the United States is telling: "The United States was the first country in the world to develop nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have used them in war against another nation."

I guess I am having trouble grasping the fact that we, as a country, can have as many nuclear weapons as we want but other countries that we deem unfit to possess them are not allowed to develop any type of nuclear capability (even for power, which Iran has claimed its uranium enrichment program is for and, with the advent of this report, now appears true.) Where do we, as a country, derive this power? Is it impossible to lead by example?