Towards a Green Future

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040602732_pf.html

From the picture of Ms Applebaum, I would put her in the 35-50 year old age catagory. This implies that she might recall living during the cold war, when the US, Britain, USSR, China, and France all had nuclear weapons on hair-trigger launch mode. On several occasions, we came perilously close to nuclear war due to errors in launch-detection systems on both sides. Reducing our nuclear weapons inventories in a multi-lateral, verifiable manner is in everyone's best interest. A single missile, launched in error, could kill millions.

Obama realizes this threat to international peace and safety. Strange that she does not chastise arms reduction accomplishments from the Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 administrations.

As far as her assertion "Yet there is no evidence that U.S. nuclear arms reductions have ever inspired others to do the same. All of the world's more recent nuclear powers -- Israel, India, Pakistan -- acquired their weapons well after such talks began, more than 40 years ago. " goes, she is woefully ignorant of the fact that South Africa, Brazil, and Libya have been deterred from pursuing nuclear technology. Also, she seems to have forgotten the Non-Proliferation treaty that, with the exception of a few rogue states (Pakistan, North Korea), has worked to successfully limit the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Also, she seems to forget that many nations with advanced technology have chosen not to develop nuclear weapons: Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.

A world without nuclear weapons is a fantasy right now, but we have moved forward in reducing nuclear arsenals, and we must continue to move away from vast numbers of strategic warheads poised to obliterate hundreds of millions of people in less than 45 minutes.

If Ms Applebaum prefers to live in a world where nations are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, she is entitled to that fantasy. But for the rest of us, it sounds like a nightmare we would all rather wake up from.

Fun on a bun!

"While the nation debates the cost of climate change -- whether the price of electricity and gasoline should increase because of their greenhouse gas emissions -- the problem already has a price tag on the Chesapeake Bay.

Sea levels are rising almost twice as fast in the Chesapeake region as in most of the world, and waterside communities are spending millions to keep the water from eroding yards, marshes and sandy beaches."

*******

And our politicians fiddle while Rome burns....

The Obama administration proposes a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, which is a good start. This type of system worked well for reducing acid-rain causing emissions for much less cost than was expected. However, given the threat this poses to the fossil fuel lobby, the opposition to any legislation (no matter how watered down) will be enormous.

I am in serious doubt about the President's ability to pass significant legislation in this arena - even if the economy was prosperous, this would be a task that requires a level of political capital that neither party has ever possessed, or been willing to spend without regard to servicing their corporate donors.
 

Just for the record, I have no problem with Obama smoking the occasional cigarette.

And now, on with our regularly scheduled day.

Poor McCain. I really feel sorry for him.

In 2000, he ran contrary to his own party on some issues, and his own party eviscerated him for it. Karl Rove, via the Bush 2000 republican primary, pulled out one attack after another, destroying McCain's chances to be the Republican nominee that year.

McCain then steadily moves closer and closer to Bush and his right-wing power base, just in time to be tied to one of the most unpopular president's of all time.

McCain then manages to get nominated in 2008, and has to go head to head with Barack Obama - a candidate arguably even more formidable than Bill Clinton.

Now, after a poorly run campaign, 3 lackluster debate performances, and being outspent  4 to 1 in advertising, McCain is going back to the trusty Republican toolbox from the 1940's and 50's.

Red-baiting. This, for those that do not know, is a classic tactic of politics. When your opponent suggests any sort of government program to address any kind of problem, or when your opponent is in favor of rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy (that helped explode the deficit), accuse them of being "socialist."  To clarify: raising defense spending is never socialist, even though the size of the government invariably increases, and private companies become completely dependent on government contracts (welfare). Spending government money to provide healthcare for people is, by conservative definition, socialist.

Why? Who knows. Probably because it was labeled "socialized medicine" in the late 1940's by the American Medical Association.

So, when a campaign resorts to redbaiting, it usually means they are extremely desperate, and on the verge of a major defeat. It also means they have no idea what "socialism" or "capitalism" are either. Definitions, anyone?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Socialism: 

So, come election day, I will get to vote here in Alexandria, VA - my new home. I was checking out the Alexandria voter registration site (because I'm a political dork, and that how I roll), and found out the following.

1. Alexandria has an electronic voting system (new to me - I was always an opti-scan voter in Iowa).
2. Virginia law requires you to produce a valid ID or sign an affidavit testifying to your identity prior to voting (new to me)
3. The company that makes the voting machines that Alexandria uses is Hart InterCivic.   A comparison of their officers to the OpenSecrets.org donor database shows no contributions to any candidates in the 2008 cycle.

On election day, I will bring every form if ID with me from Drivers license to my student ID, to my Green Party and ACLU membership cards (ok - maybe not those last two, in case or Republican poll thugs watchers).

In other news:

Not so surprisingly, the Washington Post has endorsed Obama.  The cliff notes version of the article: Obama is pretty cool, and could be a great president. McCain is pretty cool too, but has run a crappy campaign and his economic plan of yet more tax cuts for the rich is monumentally bad.

....on Obama's use of social networking technology to help his campaign.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/21222/?a=f

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903531_pf.html

Just so we're clear - when Obama uses the phrase "lipstick on a pig" it is a sexist attack on Palin. When McCain uses it, it's ok. When Palin uses it, it's ok.

Wow. It's getting deeper than I expected already! But, anything to distract us from real issues must be a good thing, right? I mean really, how boring would it be to debate the merits of McCain "DrillPlan 9000" energy strategy, and Obama's "CleanCoalNuclearFantasy with a dash of renewables" added for spice?

Considering the amount of special interest money from the energy companies flowing to both campaigns (see chart link in my previous post), I do not expect anything more than window-dressing when it comes to energy issues.

And both campaigns know this too - thus "LipstickGate." Because, at best, you will only get small, incremental change out of two corporate-dominated parties.

Happy Wednesday, comrades!

.....still not a muslim.

For all those who say "I like what he says, but I can't get over his name!"  

Might I suggest he change his name to a more european sounding one? Please vote for one fo the following european names:

1. Joseph Stalin
2. Adolf Hitler
3. Benito Mussolini
4. Neville Chamberlain
5. Francois Mitterand
6. Karl Marx

........maybe he should just stick with Obama......what's in a name, anyways?