Home Blog Page 3331

Sarah Palin’s Right: You Should Run on Energy

( – promoted by lowkell)

Over the past week, Sarah Palin encouraged Tea-Party candidates to make energy issues a central part of their campaigns. “There’s nothing stopping us from achieving energy independence that a good old national election can’t fix,” she said.

Palin’s full of surprises, but this piece of campaign advice caught me off-guard. After all, a recent poll found that energy is the issue that inspires the most faith in Democratic lawmakers. Since President Obama made clean energy a central part of their campaign in 2008, this poll suggests that this is what the majority of people want.  Therefore, Democrats AND Republicans should all be running on clean energy.

Tea-partiers are always more than welcome to pontificate & peddle” more of the same”, blathering about dirty, old energy technologies that date back to the 19th century.

When in fact it will be bold Republicans and smart Democrats that support clean, innovative, job generating “energy ideas” that will truly get a lift by campaigning on energy.  

Eight years of “Drill, baby, Drill,” during the Bush administration got us exactly where we are now – in trouble and dependent on foreign oil. But that isn’t what the American voters want now. American voters want progress and they want jobs.  The clean energy plan at the center of the economic package, which just approved a $100 million investment in smart grid technology, will lead to 30,000 Americans getting new job training.

These are the energy policies that Americans will have the most faith in. And that’s why I encourage the undecided Senators out there–those lawmakers and candidates from both parties who have been quiet about clean energy and climate legislation–to step forward and declare their support for a clean energy future for America and show some leadership.

Rather than being scared about what the Tea Party will say in response, lawmakers should be listening to American voters. People want to see progress right now, not more Congressional gridlock.

Comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is primed for passing. It has already passed in the House. A new Senate bill is expected to become public in the coming days and will have tri-partisan support in the Senate thanks to Senators Kerry (D), Graham (R), and Lieberman (I). After the bill is unveiled, negotiating will begin in earnest.  Forward movement is further propelled by the White House backing, thanks to President Obama’s repeated requests for a bill to be delivered to his desk. And it has already gone through numerous hearings and been thoroughly debated on the Hill.

Senators should pass a clean energy and climate bill this summer and head into the final campaign push with a real success in hand–an action plan to deliver on the three of the most pressing issues for American voters right now:

• Jobs: The clean energy and climate bill that passed the House last just is projected to create nearly 2 million jobs. In fact, for every $1 million invested in clean energy, we can create 3 to 4 times as many jobs as if we spent the same amount on fossil fuels.

• The Economy: There is a consensus among economists that America can prevent the worst impacts of climate change without hurting the economy. As Paul Krugman explained recently, the House bill would leave the American economy between 1.1 percent and 3.4 percent smaller in 2050 than it would be otherwise.

• National Security: This week, the U.S. Military warned that oil would be in dangerously short supply in the next few years, exacerbating political tensions and around the world. In contrast, Think Progress found that clean energy and climate legislation would reduce Iran’s petrodollar receipts by $1.8 trillion through 2050. That’s an average of $100 million per day that doesn’t fall into the hands of a regime that sponsors extremist groups around the world!

These are the kind of real numbers that Americans are looking for. That’s why those up for reelection this fall should run on a positive, forward-looking energy policy instead of the 19th century leftover rhetoric that Palin is dishing out.

Heather Taylor-Miesle is the director of the NRDC Action Fund. Become a fan on Facebook or Twitter.

the violence of Patriots’ Day

13

in 1775, the outbreak of the American Revolution.  The British marched  from Boston to seize arms accumulated by Americans.  The 1st shots were fired at Lexington, the badly outnumbered Americans fell back. The next engagement was at Concord. By then several hundred Americans had gathered, At North Bridge they drove the British back, and as the Redcoats retreated towards Boston, continued to fire upon them from behind rocks and trees.  More troops marched from Boston to rescue the endangered column. they retreated to Boston, where the colonists cut them off and began the siege of Boston.

This is an important day in Beantown, one experienced as a Marine ’66.  The Post band at Quantico, came up, playing at a gathering the night before. We were near Concord Bridge for the ceremonies the next morning (only 20 feet  from the cannon firing every minute), finishing the day at the end of the Marathon on a day when the Japanese finished 1-2-3-4.

Like other Americans, my memories of the date are clouded by violence of a different kind –  the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidians in Waco, and two the terrorism of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols at the Alfred P. Murrah Building.

Today I reflect upon violence.

Of course April 19th holds an important place in our national memory.  We have the image of the Minutemen, dropping their plows and grabbing their muskets.  Only Lexington and Concord were not entirely unexpected, and the response began as soon as the British began their march out:  American spies knew the British would be coming, They sent out three messengers:  Samuel Dawes, Paul Revere and William Prescott, with the latter two joining Revere after he had managed to ride out from Boston to sound the alarm.  

The events of that morning had been building for several years. I will not recount the prior history except to remind people of the Boston Massacre of 1770 and the Tea Party of December 16, 1773, the latter which led to the occupation of Boston by the British.  

The idea that Americans would respond to a threat of force or tyranny with force of their own took shape in the iconic image of the Minuteman, celebrated in poetry by the Longfellow:

Listen my children and you shall hear

of the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere

and Emerson’s “Concord Hymn”:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

    Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled;

Here once the embattled farmers stood;

    And fired the shot heard round the world.

For better or worse, our nation was born at least in part through violence, and we have celebrated that violence, however justified it may have been.

The image of Lexington and Concord has shaped our understanding of the 2nd Amendment, which does, after all, refer to a well-regulated militia.   We have from time to time heard arguments about what a militia is:  after all, McVeigh and Nichols were involved with a group calling itself the Michigan Militia, even though it was not under government regulation and the Michigan National Guard was.  And Waco, the siege of the Branch Davidian compound, was in large part because of weapons – it was ATF that went in.   Just as the earlier siege in Ruby Ridge was because of weapons.  And that siege was connected to Waco because of a visit by Randy Weaver.  

I do not wish to justify or glorify violence.  I acknowledge it. I recognize that at times its use is unavoidable. I also acknowledge that once one begins rationalizing the use of violence, it is very easy for things to spin out of control.  Was it justified for the FBI to try to take out Randy Weaver when he was barricaded with his wife and family?  Did the shot taken by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi qualify as an act of murder?  After all, while the case was transferred to Federal jurisdiction where the charges against Horiuchi were dismissed, the Federal government wound up paying millions to the Weaver family for the deaths (including Weaver’s wife) that occurred.  Was she merely collateral damage in an otherwise justified use of force?

What then about Waco?  Was “David Koresh” a madman who was jeopardizing the lives of women and children in the compound?  After all, we had already seen the mass deaths of another religious cult in Guyana, the willingness to kill any who might be viewed as threatening the survival of the cult.  

What about an atmosphere of paranoia, of black helicopters?  What about the escalation of rhetoric that could feed that paranoia?

What about books that fantasize violence against the government?  Why is it so often that these mental constructions about violence somehow wind up also being virulently anti-Semitic, as were the Turner Diaries of William Pierce that so influenced Timothy McVeigh?  That book argued for the elimination of Jews and of non-whites.  As we reflect on this day, on what McVeigh did, and look at our own time, we may remember the racism because we have a president with a Black skin, but with the last name of Bernstein I cannot forget the antisemitism, something the various “Aryan” groups have in common with much of the Klan, which also bombed synagogues in the South.

I teach government.  I am very pressed for time to prepare my students for tests –  my AP students have their exam two weeks from this morning, and we lost 9 days to snow.  Perhaps I should not take the time to explore these issues.  But I make a point of finding the time for relevant events around us.  And this is relevant.  How can I not carve out the time to help them understand?  My students range in age from 14 to 18.  The oldest were small children at the time of Oklahoma City, and few were even alive at the time of Waco.  

Each year when this date comes around I worry.  Perhaps there will again be violence on this day, or on the day that follows, which is the anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado.  That is only 11 years ago, and those of my students who are seniors have some memories of the television from that event.

I was a Marine.  One thing I learned during my service in the mid-1960s is that for the average person it is not easy to deliberately kill another human being.  We can do so in rage, we can do so in anger after we or those and that we love have been attacked.  I never saw combat, but from friends who did I also learned that one was changed by the act of taking another life.  I am grateful I have not had that experience.  

One is also changed by experiencing violence towards that one values, either personally or in principle.  When that happens, it seemingly becomes easier to rationalize one’s own use of violence, to overcome whatever reluctance one may have, even if it results in “collateral damage” beyond the target at whom we aim our anger or our retribution.

Gandhi is reputed to have said that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.  I do not know if he actually offered those words, even as I acknowledge they seem an accurate representation of his beliefs and life.  In sports we have the likes of umpires – a retaliatory hitting an opposing batter is sometimes prevented by a warning, and often responded to by rejection and fine.  There is an external power that can say “enough” before the violence escalates out of control.  

Yet we glorify violence and the willingness to stand up for one’s own, certainly in sports with loops of violent hits in football and hockey, in your face dunks in basketball, . . .  

There are times when one must stand up.  Violence may become part of what is required.  That was certainly so 235 yearss ago this morning, in the suburbs of Boston, where this date first acquired its honored position on our calendar.

It is unfortunate that memory of that day cannot avoid the memories of Waco and of Oklahoma City.  Perhaps someone with historical memory might have timed the raid on the Branch Davidian compound for some other day, any other day, on the calendar, to avoid the association that enabled the likes of McVeigh to claim a connection with the patriotic events of 1775.  Perhaps April 18th or 20th would not have made a difference.  I truly do not know.  

Like many who read this, I will listen to what Rachel Maddow will offer tonight, the McVeigh tapes.  For some, the main attraction may be that part of the human soul that finds a need to slow down and look at car crashes.  For me, it will be at least equally if not more an attempt to more fully understand a mind set that is alien to my own experience and way of thinking.

Patriot – the word comes from Patria, homeland.  It has great appeal, not merely to fans of Tom Brady or the George Mason U basketball team (and that university is named after one who demonstrated his own patriotism without ever bearing arms in combat, but by refusing to agree to a Constitution without protection for individual rights and liberties).  I love this nation, I love what I as the descendant of  immmigrant Jews has been able to experience in education, in political participation, in my ability to be able to criticize my government when I think it is wrong.

Less than two weeks before the events of Lexington and Concord, Samuel Johnson, according to Boswell, opined that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”  We do not know what the good doctor intended by those words.  At times they are used to be dismissive towards those who are passionate about this country, who honestly believe that criticism of the country is somehow unpatriotic, who might be used by demagogues to suppress political opposition.  

I am not sure what meaning I should ascribe to Patriotism.  I know that at some point violence seems an unavoidable consequence of the human condition, and the willingness to resort to violence, however reluctantly, may be necessary to ‘secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” as we read in the Declaration.  

However reluctantly.  And it is here that I can begin to separate the events of the 1990s from the iconic events of 1775.   The violence of Lexington and Concord was offered in resistance to violence, implied and actual, being advanced by the British Army.  Leaving aside for now Waco, what McVeigh did in 1995 cannot be viewed as a reluctant resorting to violence, but rather as a deliberate attempt to foment more violence.  That to me besmirches whatever real meaning one might find in the events of 1775.  

Patriota’ Day.  

“the shot heard round the world”

I will not glorify the events, but I will acknowledge the willingness of those New Englanders to sacrifice, including the sacrifice of a part of ones own soul in the taking of human life.

And I will again return to the words of the Declaration, which acknowledges what they did as the signers of that document could read just above where they affixed their own names:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

our sacred honor – where is there honor in blowing up a building that houses a day care center?  And, to return to Waco, to understand the anger it involves, at what point is the application of force in a situation that at worst represents a stalemate violate a sense of honor?  

I can offer no easy conclusions.  Insofar as people differ in experience and outlook, they will interpret things in radically different and seemingly contradictory manners.  That is true of words, it is true of history.  What the Constitution and the Declaration mean to me are evidently not the same as they do to those in “militias” or even some on the Supreme Court.  While I have never resorted to physical violence to advance my viewpoint at the expense of one with which I disagree, I understand that I am fully capable of doing so if pushed far enough.

Those in New England chose to draw a line.  In part, the nation we enjoy is a direct result of what they did, of the violence in which they participated.  If we honor this nation, we cannot avoid honoring them, including their violence.

I believe that was a violence born of sacred honor.  I see it at least in part as reluctant but necessary violence.

I attempt to make such distinctions, even as I acknowledge the real possibility of a slippery slope, the best experience of which I have had is to see someone foolishly start going down the lakeside slope of Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes, and watching how he had to be rescued.  

our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor

a three-fold statement that somehow reminds me of Corinthians,  of faith, hope, and charity

in each case the last of the three is perhaps the most important.

For me, honor requires me to respect the humanity of others, even as they may be the most deadly possible adversary.

Today is Patriot Day.  It is a day associated with violence.

But it is so much more.  It is day of honor, of commitment, of sacrifice.

Peace.

Scott Surovell: “The Gun Movement Comes to Fort Hunt”

41

Over at his blog, The Dixie Pig, Del. Scott Surovell (D-44) shares his thoughts on the “open carry”, “Restore the Constitution” rally scheduled for today at Fort Hunt Park in his district. According to Surovell, his constituents are reacting with “concern, fear, and outright anger with some.” The bottom line, from Surovell’s perspective, is that “writing a letter to the editor, starting a blog, or running a TV ad are much more effective methods of communication than staging a rally with a loaded and/or unloaded weapons in what is really a suburban neighborhood park just because you can do it.”

For all of Del. Surovell’s thoughts on today’s anti-government, “open carry” rally in Fort Hunt Park, click here. What do you think?

P.S. As the Washington Post story points out, “Those coming to the “Restore the Constitution” rally give Obama no quarter for signing the law that permits them to bring their guns to Fort Hunt, run by the National Park Service, and to Gravelly Point on the banks of the Potomac River. Nor are they comforted by a broad expansion of gun rights in several states since his election.” That’s right, Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have expanded gun rights since they took office in January 2009. Why don’t they get any “credit” for this from pro-gun folks?

UPDATE: Rep. Jim Moran (D-8th, VA) weighs in.

The free association and gathering of individuals is a constitutionally protected right that all Americans should support, regardless of whether one agrees with the substance of the protest. Holding an armed rally at a public park however, raises major public safety concerns.

These anti-government demonstrations are fueled by the belief that our constitutional rights under the Second Amendment are somehow under attack and urgent action is needed. While this may be a powerful rallying point for special interest groups, the claim could not be further from the truth. In fact, much to my dismay, virtually every action the federal government has taken in the past decade has weakened commonsense gun laws already on the books.

I understand that the Park Service is well aware of the situation and is working to ensure the public’s safety is protected. I urge anyone attending the event to protest in a peaceful manner, respectful of the park and its visitors. I maintain my belief that firearms do not belong in national parks but unfortunately, that’s now the law of the land.

 

College Students Speak Out for Campus Coffee Week April 17-25, 2010

0



For more complete instructions for Campus Coffee Week, go to www.CoffeePartyUSA.com.

Catherine Crabill has enough signatures to get on the Republican primary ballot against Rob Wittman

1

I saw this on the Northern Neck News online site:

Friday, Catherine Crabill of Lancaster County, filed the required number of signatures with Republican First District Chairman Tom Foley to be listed as a candidate for the party’s congressional nomination in its June 8 primary.

http://lwpolive.northernneckne…

Here’s the full article:

Crabill secures votes needed

 By Colston Newton

    Rep. Rob Wittman, (RMontross) will not only have to fight a Democrat to keep his seat in Congress but a Republican as well.

  Friday, Catherine Crabill of Lancaster County, filed the required number of signatures with Republican First District Chairman Tom Foley to be listed as a candidate for the party’s congressional nomination in its June 8 primary.

  Crabill submitted “about 1,500” signatures Foley said, adding that his comparison of the votes to the First District’s voter rolls showed that the signatories are registered voters as the law requires.  

  Crabill filed her petitions just before the April deadline for filing, Foley said. He noted that Wittman filed his petitions, which had 2,400 signatures in March. By filing first, Wittman is entitled to be listed first on the ballot, Foley said.

  He added most of Crabill’s signatures came from the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck.

  As he returned from Afghanistan on Sunday, Wittman had no comment regarding Crabill’s qualification for the primary other than to note she has said she was running against him for the Republican nomination.  

  The primary is a “job interview every two years” he said, noting that his campaign would focus on leadership and “the things we’ve done.”

  The winner of the Republican primary will likely face Krystal Ball of King George and Fredericksburg who is the sole Democratic contentender in November’s election.  

I don’t know enough about 1st District Republican politics to know where this will lead but Wittman can’t be happy with this development.  Given Crabill’s showing against Albert Pollard in last fall’s General Assembly election, she may force Wittman to spend a good piece of his campaign chest in the primary.

On the other hand, Crabill will need money to mount a primary campaign and her next challenge is to make certain her check for the filing fee doesn’t bounce.

I’d appreciate comments from folks who are more conversant with VA-01 Repulbicans than I am.

 

Sometimes Politics IS Having to Say You’re Sorry

1

This week former President Bill Clinton took an unusual step.  He admitted he should not have listened to Robert Rubin and Larry Summers on the subject of deregulating derivatives.  In an interview with Jake Tapper, Bill Clinton said:


“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.

“And the flaw in that argument,” Clinton added, “was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”

 The statement was poorly timed (way too late), though refreshing.  This is especially so given the Bushies’ incessant and ridiculous rants about how they (and no one else) are correct about–well, everything.  The extent of their embrace of deregulation and hands-off oversight was without precedent.

Meanwhile, rather than apologize, Dick Cheney adamantly and angrily Rumpelstiltskin-ed his presumed “correctness.” I have to wonder when he will give up the preposterous stance that everything he did was right and everything Obama does deserves his overarching contempt.  The Bush administration was correct less than most administrations, whatever the party. We are still paying for their wrongs of both omission and commission.  I have repeated the litany many a time, so I won’t do so here (but lying us into Iraq and neglecting Katrina victims are not the half of it, as we all know).  Indeed, presidents have been impeached for far less than what they did.  But Cheney keeps it up.  Imagine a world in which George W. Bush and Dick Cheney apologized to the nation for what they did!  Instead, Ole Mr. Buckshot continues to hype his false claims that Obama is either nationalizing the banks or giving another bailout, both of which are so false you wonder how they cam make the claims with a straight face.  

My point is this:  In the ability to self-reflect and self-appraise, Dems outshine GOPhers every time. Spin is a part of politics, but lying should not be.  Nor should be constant obstruction. But the GOP leadership, and too many of its members in Congress and along K Street, continue to lie without shame, to feed at the public trough without  guilt, and to know nothing and do nothing without embarrassment. It’s time for more GOP folk to apologize for leading us astray.  What’s the chance of that happening?

Not only has John McCain nothing to say about all of his many mistakes, he has doubled-own on them, even upping the ante.  Today, Crooks and Liars blog captured his omnipresent pathetic lie-fest best when it used the Dan Hicks song line: How Can I miss you when you won’t go away here.

Meanwhile, such courageous folks as Andrew Sullivan, David Frum and Kathleen Parker have been the point guards on sorely needed Republican rhetoric reform away from the lowest common denominator.  They haven’t exactly apologized for their party.  But, frankly, they shouldn’t have to.  They, at least, have tried to get the party honchos to dial back the extreme rhetoric and fibs.  For example, we all know about David Frum’s recent foray into GOP banishment.  Last fall Parker she wrote this column identifying some of the wayward ways of the current Republican leadership in Congress, including, as she writes “pandering to America’s inner simpleton.”  

This week, Kathleen Parker, tried to dial back the GOP and its unofficially sanctioned (but wink-winked supported) “Tea Parties” from their repugnant flirtation with violent rhetoric. (More on this subject later this week).  Trouble is GOP leaders and talking heads have been part of the problem.  This (honesty  on Parker’s part) has earned the recent recipient of the Pulitzer the bitter condemnation of many a GOPher.  Where is their shame?  Sullivan, Frum Parker, however we disagree with them on many issues, have shown some real courage.  And it’s about time more in the GOP did.

Tea Partying with a Birther British Lord

2

It’s unbelievable, isn’t it? A movement named after the Tea Party rebellion against the British aristocracy has joined forces with a British aristocrat.

Lord Christopher Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, spoke at a Freedomworks Tea Party event on Thursday in DC. But as David Weigel reports, he wasn’t exactly on message, first making a birther “joke,” then confirming he’s a birther:

“I have no idea where he was born,” said Monckton, who was working the crowd and signing autographs. “What I do find strange is that the public records of his Hawaiian birth have been sealed, and can not be obtained by the public. His lawyers have spent a lot of money trying to seal the records of his public life. All of those records should be open to the public, as they always were for previous presidents.”

I pointed out to Monckton that the state of Hawaii released Obama’s certification of live birth nearly two years and ago, and that the persistent challenges to his citizenship have inspired some members of the military to refuse to serve under Obama. “The effective classification of all of these documents of his early life is surely contrary to the spirit of freedom and openness in the Democratic west,” said Monckton. “It’s bound to raise questions in some peoples’ minds. However! I have no idea where he’s born, but it made a nice joke.”

Monckton has made a career out of denying climate science, going so far as to call American youth climate activists “Hitler Youth.” At the event, Monckton also reiterated his stance that all people with HIV should be quarantined.

Republicans try to paint birthers as being on the fringe of conservatism. But when a birther/quarantiner/denier is invited to speak at an event organized by Freedomworks, chaired by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey, the lines between the GOP & the Crazy get increasingly blurry.

Mark Warner on Financial Reform Legislation: “This should not be a partisan issue”

3



“I’d love to hear from Senator McConnell and some of the others specifics, not just general attacks…”

“I’m still relatively new to this job, and I didn’t get the memo yet that we weren’t actually supposed to get stuff done in a bipartisan way…this should not be a partisan bill.”

“We need to set financial rules of the road for the next 50-60 years.  We had pretty good rules of the road that were set in the ’30s that lasted us 80 years; I’d love to see a bill that would put the next 80 years rules in place.”

Jeff Schapiro: “Will voter anger sweep Webb out?”

5



Personally, I think it’s far, far too early to say much intelligent about Jim Webb’s reelection chances in 2012. For starters, how much “voter anger” will there be at that point, and who will that anger be directed at? Who knows. Second, who will the Republicans nominate to run against Webb (assuming Webb even runs for reelection)? If it’s George Allen, how does he get beyond “macaca” and all the other reasons he lost the last time around? If it’s “Sideshow Bob” Marshall, can a guy even further to the right than “Felix Macacawitz” get elected in Virginia?  Finally, how popular will President Obama be by 2012, since he’ll be on the ballot along with Webb?  At this point, it’s extremely difficult to say. In politics, 2 years might as well be 2 decades. Anyway, we’ll see what happens, first and foremost with the economy, over the next couple years. A lot of things will happen in that time period, we just don’t know what those things will be exactly.

Anyway, please feel free to use this as an open thread on Jim Webb, his performance in office so far, and his reelection chances in 2012.