Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI'm not talking about hockey or soccer goals here, but the kind of goal President Bush has decided to set for reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
President Bush will endorse an "intermediate goal" today for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but he will not put forward any specific legislation or proposal on how the goal should be met, White House officials said.
Now that will do wonders for stopping greenhouse gas emissions, won't it? There's no actual plan, no legislation and no negative outcomes if you don't manage to make the goal. In short, there's no need at all to try to reach the goal by cutting back on emissions.
So why even mention it? Ah. That has to do with political speech and the way the game is played. Sort of like "The Clear Skies Initiative" which was not about clear skies at all. Or like "The Healthy Forests" initiative which seemed to suggest that a healthy forest is one with nary a tree left to get sick.
With Bush, up really is down.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
i'm sure mccain will endorse the same goal.
Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 12:59pm
Probably a little CYA for McCain to the conservatives....
by that, I mean...McCain is on the "yes there's global warming, and yes it's atleast partially man-made" side.
This of course pisses the hell out of the "GW isn't man-made" or plain ol' Limbaugh "There ain't no such thang" guys.
So....Bush comes out with "a statement" or "goal" that atleast fakes interest in stemming greenhouse gas emissions. McCain can then run with that and tell the connies "See, even Bush recognizes the problem and that we have to do something about it" and can "move to the Center" on global warming while keeping the base happy.
Other than that, you're right, Ms Goodrich...it's meaningless.
Posted by Mask at 04/16/2008 @ 1:18pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/16/2008 @ 1:15pm
Odd ... I'm pretty sure that the last NIE came to the conclusion that starting a war in a country that posed no threat (Iraq) had increased the number of terrorists. Well, the last NIE released that is. (The new one being too secret to share with the public.)
As to "...it just created dependency that lasts generations." That too would be like our occupation of Iraq, right? After all, as long as we're there to do the actual heavy lifting the Iraqis can always run away from the fighting and generally do nothing.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/16/2008 @ 1:21pm
The study to which "MaryBretBrad" refers was done by Richard H. Sander. Sander argued that affirmative action encourages black law students to choose elite universities, where they are less likely to succeed, whereas if they chose second-tier universities, they would be more likely to succeed and more likely to be admitted to the bar - because this admittance relies more upon good grades than upon the prestige of one's chosen school.
The following are Sander's answers to the question of how ending affirmative action in law-school admissions would affect the numbers of black law students and lawyers.
applicants - unclear,
matriculants -14.1%,
graduates -7.6%,
bar admittees +8.8%.
Sander's study does have some critics. David L. Chambers and three other law professors recently wrote that "Sander's article is premised upon a series of statistical errors, oversights, overgeneralizations, and several implausible (and at times internally contradictory) assumptions. Consequently, his estimates of a post-affirmative-action world are wildly optimistic."
Here are the estimates of David L. Chambers and his colleagues of the effects of discontinued AA:
applicants -10% to -15%,
matriculants -35% to -40%,
graduates -30% to -35%,
bar admittees -25% to -30%.
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume 51, Issue 12, Page A35 (available online)
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/16/2008 @ 2:51pm
Would have preferred that he not say anything?
i believe the author said that she would have preferred if bush had a plan.
i'm not sure she can be more clear than that.
the list of other examples you have given is totally unrelated to the subject at hand, and i believe The Nation's policy says, again, quite cleary:
Please refrain from straying off-topic
Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 3:11pm
you know, it's oh so funny when conservatives (who clearly have nothing better to do, as evidence by their frequently attending left-wing blogs) insult or otherwise degrade the level of discussion on a topic that is not only of serious concern to scientists, but to all human beings, animals and plants.
second, that they continue to defend the worst president in the history of our country is truly quite astonishing in and of itself.
Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 3:14pm
The easiest solution to the "illegal immigrant" problem is to make it easier to immigrate legally. Our system - whether by design or neglect I cannot say - tries (and fails) to discourage immigration by means of bureaucratic red tape.
This makes about as much sense as trying to reduce traffic by making it harder to get a driver's license. If this were our traffic-control policy, I guarantee you we would have an "illegal driver" problem just like our present "illegal immigrant" problem.
As for "stopping" illegal immigration, "Happy2" cannot of course explain how this can be done, even less how this can be done in such a way as to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. According to the best-laid plans of our country's xenophobes, "stopping" immigration requires the building of miles and miles of high walls, which must be maintained and patrolled; indeed, President Bush himself has suggested employing soldiers recently returned from Iraq for this purpose. All of this requires plenty of energy consumption and emits plenty of CO2. And for what? The only real change, environmentally speaking, would be that the direction of traffic along our border with Mexico would be shifted - somewhat - from north-south to east-west.
Really, though, to come a little closer back to the topic of this thread: If we're concerned about a disconnect between intentions and results, Exhibit A should be the military occupation of Iraq. While it's true that the effects of anti-poverty spending are sometimes (but not always) difficult to measure, there's nothing difficult about counting the number of corpses that have piled up since our acting President declared our country's mission in Iraq "accomplished."
Nor is there anything difficult about comparing the cost of the occupation of Iraq to the cost of antipoverty programs - which is comparatively minuscule. But this is something that few people to the right of our country's political center show much inclination to do. This is why they have such a skewed notion of how our government actually wastes money and how it could spend this money more wisely and more effectively.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/16/2008 @ 3:21pm
Jeez he should have just signed kyoto and ignored it like every other country. Same results with this initiative without the international consensus. I guess I don't see the difference.
Posted by mARKlATTIN at 04/16/2008 @ 3:40pm
according to larry kudlow
need we know more? kudlows "analysis" is so unworthy of attention, so lacking in detail, so unscrupulous, as to be hysterical.
joseph stieglitz (a nobel prize winner) says the war could cost $5 trillion dollars.
what could $5 trillion buy?
Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 6:14pm
stieglitz on the costs of war:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan
read the article. it's astonishing.
Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 6:16pm
According to Wikipedia:
"The President's budget for 2006 totals $2.7 trillion. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures: $544.8 billion (20.90%) - Social Security
$512.1 billion (18.00%) - Defense
$359.5 billion (13.79%) - Unemployment and welfare
$345.7 billion (13.26%) - Medicare
$268.4 billion (10.30%) - Medicaid and other health related
$211.1 billion (8.10%) - Interest on debt
$88.7 billion (3.40%) - Education and training
$70.7 billion (2.71%) - Transportation
$68.4 billion (2.62%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.1 billion (1.65%) - Administration of justice
$38.4 billion (1.47%) - Foreign affairs
$31.2 billion (1.20%) - Natural resources and environment
$26.0 billion (1.00%) - Agriculture
$24.0 billion (0.92%) - Science and technology
$19.1 billion (0.73%) - Community and regional development
$17.8 billion (0.68%) - General government
$23.4 billion - Energy"
I cannot determine what portion of "Unemployment and welfare" consists of "antipoverty programs," but suffice it to say that it is smaller than the Defense budget.
You can quote Larry Kudlow against me - and against Wikipedia, and against the GAO - all you want.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/16/2008 @ 7:11pm
Hey, I got a great suggestion to at least, reduce our increases of greenhouse emissions......stop illegal immigration!
Think of all the reduced gas consumption by the coyotes, the border patrols, the interstate transporting of illegals, the beat-up, pollution-belching old vehicles many illegals purchase after their first few years, the `stuff' they buy in the US that takes shipping to get to Wal-Mart......Man, perfect solution....but the EnviroNuts probably won't go for it...sighhhhhhh!
Posted by HAPPY2 04/16/2008 @ 2:51pm
I'd love to end immigration, but I'm sure you wouldn't. That would require creating a socio-economic situation in Mexico that let the the working class of Mexico live decent lives, with decent amounts of money, for a decent amount of work, by our standards. This is the reason people risk death, injury, deportation, and familial separation to cross the border.
TO do this, you'd need to put an immediate end to NAFTA, let the Mexicans have a truly fair and honest round of elections, and redistribute hundreds of billions of dollars in Mexico, I doubt you'd go for that. As it would hurt Wall Streets precious bottom line.
Posted by shadow master at 04/16/2008 @ 7:21pm
Congratulations, "Freiheit," we agree on something - I suspect the cost of debt service is higher, too.
But I'm sorry, Social Security is not "anti-poverty spending." When I say "anti-poverty spending," I mean precisely this and nothing else. When you decide to talk about Social Security, you are Changing The Subject.
And indeed, when we focus on raw numbers in the Federal Budget, we neglect the main point that I was trying to make two postings ago, namely that the Iraq occupation is a disastrous waste of money. Where is the return on our investment there? As questionable as some anti-poverty programs are, at least they do not the cause thousands of deaths every year, as the Iraq occupation does.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/16/2008 @ 7:33pm
As Sherlock Holmes once said in one of those great tales by Arthur Conan Doyle, when you eliminate the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
So why ARE we occupying Iraq, "LVLiberty1"? Is it to fight terrorism? Nope. There was no terrorist network in Iraq to speak of before the occupation. Is it to find weapons of mass destruction? Nope. Never were any.
So is it, perhaps, to get a return on somebody's investment? This certainly is improbable, isn't it? But we've already just eliminated the impossible, and this is what remains.
Come to think of it, certain investors are profiting nicely from the Iraq occupation: those who invest in Halliburton, for example. Maybe it's for THEM that the occupation is continuing. After all, it makes perfect economic sense from THEIR point of view.
Only not from the point of view of the REST of us.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/16/2008 @ 7:59pm
Could we MAYBE find some middle ground between JAKOB trying to live upto his family name as a means of governance....
and LVLIB who thinks everything done since TEDDY Roosevelt and "trust-busting" is "un-Constitutional"!
Posted by Mask at 04/16/2008 @ 8:06pm
good posting Jake. one large item missing from the budget is the cost of the wars. like all corporate crooks Bush keeps two sets of books. the cost of the wars is in that second set, and is completely paid on credit. and the American people have not noticed, the fools.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/16/2008 @ 8:20pm
The US is not a business engaged in generating a profit, therefore the subject of ROI is completely irrelevant
is this the same lvliberty who, day in and day out, complains about "entitlement" programs draining the federal budget?
if you actually believe that the iraq war is both morally and ethically necessary (which you clearly do), then how are health care and education not also both morally and ethically necessary?
Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 8:38pm
it is well-known that numerous individuals and financial institutions are profiting handsomely from the occupation of two different countries.
what is not well-known is that these same individuals and financial institutions are charging the government, and by extension the american taxpayer, exorbitant amounts for products and services which the government can charge for much, much less.
Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 8:42pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/16/2008 @ 8:50pm
Well, okay LL, what domestic policies enacted by the Fed SINCE T.R. do you endorse?
Posted by Mask at 04/16/2008 @ 8:59pm
I cannot determine what portion of "Unemployment and welfare" consists of "antipoverty programs," but suffice it to say that it is smaller than the Defense budget.
You can quote Larry Kudlow against me - and against Wikipedia, and against the GAO - all you want.
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/16/2008 @ 7:11pm
How about Robert Samuelson who figured out that welfare programs make up ~55% of the federal budget...the military...19%.
Posted by usc1 at 04/16/2008 @ 9:58pm
Keep Government out of the environmental business.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/16/2008 @ 7:27pm
can't wait to open that refinery next door to ol' rev. larry's chapel...
america, start burning those tires!!!!
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 10:08pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=usc1
military spending, not counting the wars of course, has doubled under this mis-administration.
"welfare spending" has not.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/16/2008 @ 10:13pm
So why ARE we occupying Iraq, "LVLiberty1"?
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/16/2008 @ 7:59pm
We are in Iraq to support and allow a fledgling democracy to take hold.
We are also there because of oil...Huh? Did a conservative just say that? Yes...only it's not for the reason liberals think. Although it fits nicely into the liberal framework of "America is big bad bully that like to steal oil and kill babies" it just ain't true. We are in Iraq because whoever controls Iraq, controls the oil...whoever controls the oil will be ridiculously wealthy (even richer than if their lifestyle was subsidized by the UN, but I digress). If terrorists control the country, they would have enough money to buy weapons that would be baaaad for the US...and so we stay to make sure that doesn't happen.
Posted by usc1 at 04/16/2008 @ 10:18pm
Besides, if we really wanted to invade a country to steal their oil, Frosty would be American by now.
:-)
Posted by usc1 at 04/16/2008 @ 10:19pm
military spending, not counting the wars of course, has doubled under this mis-administration.
"welfare spending" has not.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/16/2008 @ 10:13pm
And yet, welfare spending is still 55% of the budget and the military...19%.
Posted by usc1 at 04/16/2008 @ 10:21pm
the oil resources of Iraq have been NATIONALIZED. that means they belong to the people of Iraq. the US has attempted to de-nationalize the oil, in favor of the oil companies, mostly American. this could surely be described as attempted theft.
as for Maasch's absurd, aren't they all, suggestion that Iraq pay us for the war's expenses. Iraq owes billions to other countries, mostly for arms purchases. the current puppet gov't is on the hook for that debt. they cannot pay it, ever. same with paying for OUR war.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/16/2008 @ 10:25pm
Halliburton said last month it was relocating to the United Arab Emirates to capitalise on the Gulf region's booming energy market.
••••••••••
God Bless The United Arab Emirates,
Land that we love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the desert, to the desert,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless The United Arab Emirates, Our new home funded by no-bid u.s. contracts.
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 10:44pm
If terrorists control the country, they would have enough money to buy weapons that would be baaaad for the US...and so we stay to make sure that doesn't happen.
it's clear that this person knows nothing. the chances of al qaeda (the only real terrorist group inside of iraq) taking control of the oil is so ridiculously impossible, it is worthy of no mention.
Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 11:12pm
According to Wikipedia:
"On January 24, 2006 Halliburton's subsidiary KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) announced that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build 'temporary detention and processing facilities' or internment camps."
That was just a few months before Halliburton decided to split with KBR (on April 15th of that year).
While a $385 million contract may seem like small potatoes to tycoons like "Happy2" and may not have been enough for Cheney and his Halliburton cronies, I believe most of the rest of us would agree that a deal like this qualifies as impressively large, if not "huge" profiteering. Big lie? Keep looking, "Happy2."
Though the real scandal was those no-bid contracts of a few years earlier. Thanks to "Emile Dubois" and "Frosty" for the reminders.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/16/2008 @ 11:45pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/16/2008 @ 9:58pm
Well....I stand by my statement, and it was not hyperbole-
1. Civil Rights legislation
-----That was simply the enforcement of the 14th Amendment, predating Teddy by some 30+ years.
2. Interstate Hwy's, bridges, and rail (interstate commerce and postal roads under the constitution).
------Well, the IHS was partially based on the need for quick coast-to-coast transport in case of war (harkening back to WW-2), so it was somewhat military, somewhat domestic...but I won't quibble.
3. NASA- not a true domestic policy since it's background was military but the domestic results are obvious.
--------What CONSTITUTIONAL basis is there for NASA...that can't be applied to Social Security and Medicare as well?
4. Since Chief Justice Marshall's ruling in McCulloch v Maryland, then I guess banking laws and bankruptcy (with reservations).
---------Marshall and the "McCulloch" date to 1819, again almost 100! years before T.R.
5. I'll have to ponder this for more-there are probably a handful of others.
------Well, happy to wait.
So, I stick with my point, less the Interstate Highway System, nothing done on domestic policy since Teddy and trust-busting earns your favor.
BTW, DO you favor "trust-busting"?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 09:07am
Dear "Happy2,"
toward the pure, unvarnished greed that you so eloquently and in such detail describe, we "Lefties" feel not fear,
but rather contempt.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/17/2008 @ 09:15am
And yet, welfare spending is still 55% of the budget and the military...19%.
Posted by USC1 04/16/2008 @ 10:21pm | ignore this person
add the costs of the wars, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO BE PAID FOR, and the picture changes dramatically.
what happens when the gov't "gives" money to its citizens? they spend it. what happens when we spend the money on defense white elephants? we get armaments designed to thwart an enemy who no longer exists.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 09:46am
Per Papal declaration:
The ... "list of seven new mortal sins, to wit: 'environmental pollution, genetic manipulation, accumulating excessive wealth, inflicting poverty, drug trafficking and consumption, participating in morally debatable experiments, and the violation of fundamental rights of human nature.' "
So being too rich, and polluting our environment will get you sent to hell. Repent sinners, lest ye burn!
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/17/2008 @ 11:50am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/17/2008 @ 11:50am
And so will having an abortion or being a sexually-active homosexual.
Who cares what the Vatican thinks?
Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 11:55am
When the environmentalists sets national goals, Americans better be worried.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/17/2008 @ 12:20pm
Mask,
Actually a lot of folks do .. albeit selectively. Hence my flippancy.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/17/2008 @ 12:20pm
second, that they continue to defend the worst president in the history of our country is truly quite astonishing in and of itself.
Posted by DARLADOON
Why would we defend Clinton?
Posted by abell12ct at 04/17/2008 @ 12:23pm
The ... "list of seven new mortal sins, to wit: 'environmental pollution, genetic manipulation, accumulating excessive wealth
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER
Accumulating excessive wealth is a mortal sin? Does that mean the Vatican is going to hell?
Posted by abell12ct at 04/17/2008 @ 12:25pm
When the environmentalists sets national goals, Americans better be worried.
Posted by ABELL12CT 04/17/2008 @ 12:20pm
your right.
god wrote in the constitution that the air must be dirty.
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 1:13pm
Does that mean the Vatican is going to hell?
Posted by ABELL12CT 04/17/2008 @ 12:25pm
no, it means they are helping to take us there.
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 1:14pm
Per Papal declaration:
The ... "list of seven new mortal sins, to wit: genetic manipulation,
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/17/2008 @ 11:50am
i wonder if they eat GMO-free in the vatican......
Posted by frosted zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 1:15pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=abell12ct
see what I mean? this is just gold. gold, I tell you. this is just the kind of post that keeps me coming back again and again.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 1:56pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS
Please please ignore me and I'll do the same for you.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/17/2008 @ 3:40pm
Posted by ABELL12CT 04/17/2008 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person
I would not miss this for the world. the subtlety, the understated intelligence, the humanism, all there for all of us to enjoy. thank you and god bless you.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 4:31pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=abell12ct
how about this as a compromise. you ignore me and you stop posting drivel. fair enough?
Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 5:00pm
I will go back to my cave now. Thank you for your utmost wisdom and guidance oh powerful one.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/17/2008 @ 5:09pm
Posted by ABELL12CT 04/17/2008 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person
be sure to wipe your feet.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 5:43pm
So Back to the Vatican and the sin of accumulating excessive wealth.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/18/2008 @ 09:31am