A Second Look Rotating Header Image

politics opinion

Could This be Where It All Begins?

The Progress Report wrote:

BP Oil Disaster

BP Oil Platform Collapses in Gulf of Mexico

Beyond Petroleum

From: The Progress Report [progress@americanprogressaction.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:40 AM
To: tom@tomchambless.com
Subject: Beyond Petroleum

FIGHTING THE OIL ADDICTION: The BP blowout is changing the politics of oil in this
 country, with polls finding that “Americans have turned far less supportive of increased drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coastline.” Although Louisiana’s senators, Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R) continue to defend BP and our nation’s addiction to oil, some Florida politicians who supported the “Drill Baby Drill” efforts have strongly pulled back, while Mississippi and Alabama politicians have gotten queasy about their former support for drilling. Obama has halted his drive to promote offshore drilling as safe energy, and today sent Congress a legislative package to deal with the immediate crisis.

Could this be where it all begins? President Obama said in Chicago after his triumphant victory that this is the time where it all begins, where generations from now will look back and point to this time as where we started to heal. Could this be a new beginning for American politics – one that swells the ranks of those who think that we must wean ourselves from oil. It could be. It could happen with the right circumstances. All that needs to happen now is for a voice to come forth with strength and enough forcefulness to keep the momentum alive.

Today, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are unveiling the American Power Act to tackle this generational challenge. The American Power Act includes provisions that limit Obama’s offshore drilling plans and grant a veto over drilling to any state that could be affected by a spill. The legislation invests billions in green transportation initiatives, public transit, and natural gas trucks and buses to reduce demand for oil. It also critically caps fossil fuel pollution, which would finally address the ongoing climate disasters like those that devastated New Orleans and Nashville while weaning our nation off its addiction to oil.

Could these men be that voice? Can the Democratic Party candidate for president in 2004, John Kerry, and the Democratic Party vice-presidential candidate in 2000, Joe Lieberman, have the gravitas to not only rally the base but gain enough momentum with all Americans to build a strong national sentiment toward finally ridding ourselves of oil? Could the introduction of this bill, The American Power Act, one that could really mean something toward a clean future for our grand kids, and one that is introduced at a time of decreased interest in off-shore drilling, be the greatest timing ever?

The disaster in slow motion that is happening now off the coast of New Orleans may be the shock that we need as a nation to move the country in the right direction – toward capping CO2 emissions and toward renewable power. It has never been a question of “if” we move toward renewable power and end our addiction to coal and oil, but a question of “when”. That when could be and must be, now.

____________________________________________________

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Share

G.W. Bush Nominees Were Unabashed Ideologues

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts

Re: AP SPIN METER: GOP Senators Shifting Standards On Supreme Court Nominees, Henry C. Jackson, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — So, Senator, how much does judicial experience matter when considering a Supreme Court nominee?

To Republicans, it depends on conservative issues. For their ideology? Then it doesn’t take much experience at all.

Bush nominated Roberts for Chief Justice because of Bush v. Gore. Remember that? It was the worst ruling by the Supreme Court in US history. Roberts represented Bush and wrote the brief. He was instrumental in successfully arguing the case. Once the Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency, Bush later nominated him for DC circuit judge when it became available. This began the worst case of cronyism in recent history. Roberts wasn’t qualified for the Circuit. Then, after he had only served about a year as a DC circuit judge, Bush nominated him for the second time, this time for the US Supreme Court. Before that, he had no judicial experience. His experience that would qualify him for associate justice was “thin” to say the least, but chief justice? Bush propelled him to the top for winning Bush v. Gore. His views? This is from Wikipedia, “As a lawyer in the George H. W. Bush administration, Roberts signed a legal brief urging the court to overturn Roe v. Wade“. Do you need anything else? If you do, then consider that Roberts recused himself from Hamden v. Rumsfeld, a case that challenged the Bush administration’s ability to try detainees at Gitmo in military tribunals, because he had already ruled on this case as a member of the DC circuit. He ruled in favor of Bush, of course.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Samuel Alito had more experience as a judge, but looking at his rulings you have to wonder if experience alone qualifies him. While serving on the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Alito wrote in the dissent on Doe v. Groody that police, while serving a search warrant, conducting a strip search of a mother and her 10 year old daughter did not violate the mother and daughter’s constitutional rights because of “qualified immunity”, a legal defense for state and federal employees protecting them from civil actions. This is the guy that Bush figured would make a fine supreme court justice. This and other rulings were questioned during his nomination hearings. Alito was nominated by a vote of 58-42, the second lowest vote for a supreme court nominee in US history.

The right wing is crying about the nomination of Elena Kagen who is a moderate, yet these two right wing hard-liners were confirmed and are serving on the Supreme Court. This is a dark time for justice in America.

_______________________________________________________________________

Share

Defunding Oil Rich Terrorist States is a Win-Win Situation (Video)

Support VoteVets.org

Re: Think Progress » Saudi-Funded Fox News Rejects Ad Arguing Against Middle East Oil Dependence

Last week, progressive veterans organization VoteVets.org released an ad arguing that “a clean energy climate plan would cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and cut oil profits for hostile nations.” The ad asserts that “every day, Iran gets $100 million richer selling oil around the world and peddling hate.”

While CNN and MSNBC have aired the ad, Fox News is refusing to do so. Politico reports Fox apparently found the ad “too confusing.”

Watch the ad:

What I find remarkable about this ad is that the folks at VoteVets.org have found the ultimate sanction against Iran that simultaneously helps fix the environment. Think about it. When we divert research and development funds away from big oil and to renewable forms of energy we can defund the Saudis, Iraq, Dubai, and Iran and all the other oil producing nations that support terrorism, in one form or another. Remember that almost all the 9/11 skyjackers were Saudi, not Iraqi. We can do that while cleaning our waterways, lessening the impact of offshore oil drilling, and setting up a beautiful future for our kids and grandkids.

But you can bet that if something clever and good for the working man comes along Fox News will refuse it. It will come to pass that the oil companies go the way of the horse and buggy. It is just a matter of time. There is only so much oil to be had and after they wring out every drop of it out of the earth, then what? SO, why not jump on the bandwagon and herald in a new age before that crisis hits?

In a statement issued to ThinkProgress, Richard Smith, a senior adviser to VoteVets who served in Afghanistan, says “the only confusing thing” is why Fox is rejecting the ad:

“There’s nothing confusing about the link between oil and terrorist funding, and even the most dyed-in-the-wool neocons agree on that point. The only confusing thing here is why FOX News would reject an ad that calls on Congress to defund our enemies by finding new sources of energy.

It’s unclear what Fox News’ motivations are. As Media Matters has documented, the network is a reliable source of misinformation on clean energy reform. Interestingly, Saudi oil tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in Fox News’ parent company News Corp, making him the largest shareholder outside the family of CEO Rupert Murdoch. But Murdoch has said the he is for a mandatory cap on carbon emissions and believes that Fox News ought to be covering the issue differently.

It is always very clear as to what Fox News’ motivations are. They probably coordinate with the GOP before they air any kind of ad, especially one that advocates clean air. They will misinform the public through omission. It’s like I’ve always said – the more you watch Fox News, the more misinformed you become.

___________________________________________________________________

Share
You are protected by wp-dephorm: