Friday, September 02, 2005
mccain and the daily star ed board, part 2
We take a break from our regular Hurricane Katrina coverage to return to the McCain/Daily Star play-by-play...
On global warming:
At least on this one I can agree with both my Senators, at least based on their votes on the energy bill. They both voted against the original bill and the conference report that was ultimately signed into law by the president on August 8. It's a massive boon to the oil industry and it's light on the environmental provisions. I doubt McCain and Kyl voted no for the reasons I'd want them to, though I'm willing to take Senator McCain at his word above based on his actions matching those words.
He could really put his money where his mouth is by becoming a co-sponsor of S. 261, "To designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness." He seems awfully concerned about the Alaskan wilderness, and this legislation would go a long way to protecting that which Senator McCain claims he holds so dear.
Why hasn't he been more vocal on this issue then, especially about Kyoto? He's wrong about waiting until China and India are included in the treaty. The United States must sign on now for two reasons. First, we are the world's top producer of greenhouse gasses, which have been shown to be the cause of worsening tropical storms and hurricanes, the likes of which we saw earlier this week. Second, we would have far more credibility on insisting other nations join the treaty if we lead by example. McCain's rhetoric here is nothing more than a high stakes game of chicken. And given that he doesn't deny the existance of global warming, I bet dollars to doornails that he knows he's playing that game.
And I'm always skeptical of anyone who advocates nuclear power as a cure-all for our energy shortage as a way to reduce greenhouse emmissions. It's a highly imperfect and dangerous technology. If anything, he should be advocating the appropriation of money to develop cleaner ways of burning fossil fuels and to develop safer nuclear technologies. More than either of those options, though, is the need to seriously invest in research to develop more efficient renewable energy sources. Wind, hydro and solar technologies could literally save the world.
Nuclear reactions create deadly radioactive waste that nobody wants stored in their backyards. Inevitably, it will be put in rural areas populated primarily by people of color. Congress should not be putting Americans' lives at risk by exposing them to nuclear waste. There are safer, cheaper, renewable options that are virtually ignored by the new energy bill.
Responding to a question about involving U.S. businesses in "immigration reform":
Depends on what you mean by "do good for America." His argument here is a shrug and a dismissive, "that's just the way it works." I've said it before and I'll say it again: this man is not a reformer. He's just a savvy politician who knows how to sound like a reform maverick. And he's not asking the business community to pay-to-play. The corporations and ranchers and other businesses can better afford the costs he is advocating than the people coming over the border looking for a better life. It's counter-intuitive.
I'd have more confidence in this analysis if the Democrats in Congress were actually acting like an opposition party, standing up for the unprivileged like they used to. They were successful in opposing the gutting of Social Security because the Bush administration's assault on the world's most successful social welfare program was far too blatant.
Speaking of Social Security, expect another assault on it before next year's mid-term elections. Next time their tactics will be much more subtle; their efforts won't involve public meetings with constituents and there will be no mention of private accounts. I don't yet know exactly how they'll reframe it, but you and I both know they will. I suspect they are considering starting up again soon, perhaps using Katrina as a backdrop to create some Orwellian inversions.
Enough for tonight. I'm going to bed early.
On global warming:
In Alaska, the seal, sea lion sea otter population is down by 80 percent. In the Yukon, half of their spruce trees are dying from an attack of the spruce beetle because they have not had a cold enough winter to kill the larva. The native Alaskan tribes keep oral history that is handed down to them for generations, through thousands of years, and they've never seen anything like this.
Alaskan villages, because of melting permafrost, are toppling into the ocean. Erosion is incredibly severe, again because of the melting of the permafrost. The poles are a miner's canary of climate change - the atmosphere and the ozone layer at the poles. Whether we act or not is just a matter of time. Whether act in time so that our kids and our grandkids don't pay a huge price is still unknown.
//snip//
At least on this one I can agree with both my Senators, at least based on their votes on the energy bill. They both voted against the original bill and the conference report that was ultimately signed into law by the president on August 8. It's a massive boon to the oil industry and it's light on the environmental provisions. I doubt McCain and Kyl voted no for the reasons I'd want them to, though I'm willing to take Senator McCain at his word above based on his actions matching those words.
He could really put his money where his mouth is by becoming a co-sponsor of S. 261, "To designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness." He seems awfully concerned about the Alaskan wilderness, and this legislation would go a long way to protecting that which Senator McCain claims he holds so dear.
//snip//
What's the answer? Among other things, the cap-and-trade that Lieberman (Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.) and I proposed, plus nuclear power, plus a new Kyoto treaty. The United States' price for any treaty is the inclusion of India and China. The two emerging industrial nations would have to be part of any effort that would be successful in order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Why hasn't he been more vocal on this issue then, especially about Kyoto? He's wrong about waiting until China and India are included in the treaty. The United States must sign on now for two reasons. First, we are the world's top producer of greenhouse gasses, which have been shown to be the cause of worsening tropical storms and hurricanes, the likes of which we saw earlier this week. Second, we would have far more credibility on insisting other nations join the treaty if we lead by example. McCain's rhetoric here is nothing more than a high stakes game of chicken. And given that he doesn't deny the existance of global warming, I bet dollars to doornails that he knows he's playing that game.
And I'm always skeptical of anyone who advocates nuclear power as a cure-all for our energy shortage as a way to reduce greenhouse emmissions. It's a highly imperfect and dangerous technology. If anything, he should be advocating the appropriation of money to develop cleaner ways of burning fossil fuels and to develop safer nuclear technologies. More than either of those options, though, is the need to seriously invest in research to develop more efficient renewable energy sources. Wind, hydro and solar technologies could literally save the world.
Nuclear reactions create deadly radioactive waste that nobody wants stored in their backyards. Inevitably, it will be put in rural areas populated primarily by people of color. Congress should not be putting Americans' lives at risk by exposing them to nuclear waste. There are safer, cheaper, renewable options that are virtually ignored by the new energy bill.
Responding to a question about involving U.S. businesses in "immigration reform":
I think it's welcome, of course. I don't know why you have to pay money to do good for America but that seems to be the way we work in Washington. I think its very good to get the business community on board. I've had numerous conversations with the U.S. Chamber and they're already on board with our bill.
//snip//
Depends on what you mean by "do good for America." His argument here is a shrug and a dismissive, "that's just the way it works." I've said it before and I'll say it again: this man is not a reformer. He's just a savvy politician who knows how to sound like a reform maverick. And he's not asking the business community to pay-to-play. The corporations and ranchers and other businesses can better afford the costs he is advocating than the people coming over the border looking for a better life. It's counter-intuitive.
//snip//
There's a debate going on in the administration right now over the disposition of the 11 million who are already here. And I don't think that's been decided within the administration. But I can tell you this: Like Social Security, if it's going to succeed, it's got to have bipartisan support. And I know of no Democrat today who could support sending people back to the country that they came from. So I think that Kennedy's and my proposal would over time probably emerge with modifications.
I'd have more confidence in this analysis if the Democrats in Congress were actually acting like an opposition party, standing up for the unprivileged like they used to. They were successful in opposing the gutting of Social Security because the Bush administration's assault on the world's most successful social welfare program was far too blatant.
Speaking of Social Security, expect another assault on it before next year's mid-term elections. Next time their tactics will be much more subtle; their efforts won't involve public meetings with constituents and there will be no mention of private accounts. I don't yet know exactly how they'll reframe it, but you and I both know they will. I suspect they are considering starting up again soon, perhaps using Katrina as a backdrop to create some Orwellian inversions.
Enough for tonight. I'm going to bed early.
