Hey Bush, waive this!

The U.S. EPA's denial of California's waiver request regarding regulating greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles represents a larger effort by the Bush Administration to marginalize West Coast liberals. This makes Governor Schwarzenegger the Achilles' heel for Bush. Bush signed the new Energy Bill that increases CAFE standards, and is using that as cover for a supposedly federalist philisophy on tackling climate change. What about States' rights (a Gingrichian mantra), let alone all the cities and counties that are taking action on climate? Bush (or I should say Cheney) would try to stop those too if he could, since they impede oil company and automaker profits.

Well, let's hope Bush's war against West Coast liberals is as (un)successful as his other wars have been.

Note: A Cheney-like graphic originally accompanied this thoughtful and measured posting. It was removed voluntarily. Click here for more information on the Million Finger March.

On the short-lived candidacy of Colbert

Colbert's candidacy was confusing. Was he running as himself, or as his character? I thought if he won the nomination he should choose Borat as his running mate, or Borat's creator, Sascha Baron Cohen. Then you would have two fictitious characters who are parodies of right wing sentiment, asking their liberal fans to vote for them instead of voting for "serious" candidates.

Colbert's candidacy also asks, what is a serious candidate? As someone who has voted for Nader in the past (and maybe will do so again in the future), I do face that question, and people, especially Democrats always want to convince me that Nader is not a viable option. People say the same of Kucinich or Ron Paul. Any "protest" vote is supposedly "wasted." Well, Colbert was more of a fictitious candidate than a protest candidate, but those lines are blurred in media-infested American politics.

Is all of American politics a joke? The campaigns are ridiculous. And Republican sexual antics in airports are so funny that I forgot to laugh. But the consequences of bad politics are not funny at all. See the Iraq War for details. So, really, we need to take the actual results seriously. And a protest vote is a strategy. It's unclear if it is a successful strategy. Maybe in the long-run. Maybe Al Gore's renaissance as Nobel Prize winner shows that if you have guts and say what you think, you will be more popular, than if you cower and try not to offend anyone.

Back to Colbert, he helped educate his viewers about getting yourself on the ballot. I think his candidacy was a positive experiment in taking his show outside the studio. Colbert's other famous time doing that, when he gave a speech in front of Dubya, was a huge success. Good job, Colbert, for being brave, putting yourself out there, and raising questions. I know several people who will be writing in Jon Stewart's name on the ballot again. Take heed, "serious" candidates.

Homeland Security means Clean Water in the Developing World

I heard a representative of UNICEF the other day at a World Water Forum event. She said that 4,000 children die every day from lack of clean water and sanitation. That is more people than died in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Does Rudy Giuliani know about this? Will his gritted teeth address this problem?

In another post on this blog I proposed that Homeland Security focus on heart disease, the #1 killer of Americans. Now, I propose that they also address the global clean water and sanitation problem, the #1 killer of children on the planet.

If thousands of children are dying everyday, my Homeland (the Earth) is not Secure.

OK, presidential candidates, let's hear you propose to change the focus of Homeland Security to the UN Millennium Development Goals.

Gore gets Nobel, Bush doesn't

I'm happy for Al Gore. I'm glad that the Nobel Committee chose to focus the world's attention on climate change.

But, there is a nagging voice that asks, would Gore have won the peace prize if Bush wasn't so horrible? Did the Nobel Committee consider that giving Gore the peace prize might imply that Bush should get the Nobel War Prize?

I would bet that Tony Blair has given more speeches on climate change, and enacted more action on a national and global scale, than Gore. Gore is known by environmentalists as the pragmatic non-visionary in his political career who watered down the Kyoto Protocol to its present ineffective state and then failed to even bring it to the Senate for debate. Gore promoted the research focus of U.S. policy, but I can't think of a national program that Gore enacted on climate that had anything to do with actually reducing GHGs. Tony Blair showed over a decade of global leadership on climate, moving the whole G-8 on the issue, and has put forth pragmatic solutions to global warming setting the EU on their trajectory of global leader. Oh, but Blair has a European constituency, and in Gore's defense, Gore is saddled with the mid-Western and Southern U.S. And Blair sided with Bush on the Iraq War, so the Nobel Committee chose Gore.

OK, Gore, now give us some vision. Feel free to endorse my preferred solution, www.carbonshare.org.

Ah well, the fake choice of Gore versus Blair are mere idle thoughts, while GHGs pour out of the world's exhaust pipes, and the Iraq War rages on.

Rumsfeld goes to Stanford - Academia sinks to new lows

Rumsfeld got a fellowship at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

What could students or society possibly learn from Rumsfeld?
He is an example of what NOT to emulate.
His worldview is so warped, it frightens me to think of him as a "teacher." What next, Stanford, Jeff Skilling to teach Business Ethics? Dubya to teach Linguisticology?

Berkeley passed a resolution asking Rumsfeld to be prosecuted for war crimes, and Stanford offers him a position.
I hope Cal beats Stanford by at least 200 points in the Big Game!

Homeland Security means Eating Less Meat

What kills more Americans: terrorism, or hamburgers?

According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, heart disease killed 654,092 Americans in 2004.

Terrorism deaths (victims of 9/11, plus Americans put in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan) have not yet reached 10,000 Americans (though if you count Iraqi civilians and others, then you're in the ballpark). If 1,792 Americans die every day of heart disease, then every 3 days, there is another 9/11 in this country. What do you think of that, Rudy Giuliani?

We are spending $500 billion per year on militaristic death machines.
How much are we spending to prevent the cause of the highest number of American deaths?

Therefore, my fellow Americans, I propose that we shift all the money from the Department of Homeland Security (or just change their programs to better fulfill their mission of protecting Americans from what is killing them) to screen American travellers at the airport for heart disease.

When you put your luggage through the x-ray machine, you will also answer a few questions from a Homeland Security Nurse about your diet and lifestyle. If you eat several Big Macs per week, you might be taken into a special screening room where you have to watch a 2 minute video about fast food, heart disease, obesity, etc.
There will be scary brochures, posters and annoying recordings over the loud speaker about how to live a healthier lifestyle to prevent heart disease. The threat level will be orange.

C'mon, let's follow the numbers and spend the money where we can save the greatest number of Americans.

I know, someone reading this might say, "But those are apples and oranges." Homeland Security was created to fight the terrorists, not provide health care. And people want to feel safe at the airport.

But, I respond, Homeland Security is actually just Homeland Paranoia, and they haven't done anything to make us actually safer. They were created to give lots of government pork subsidies to private security and aerospace companies (bringing the war and bacon home), creating a Cold War here in the U.S. against an invisible enemy to boost corporate, Republican contributor profits. Also they are there to create a police state infrastructure to suppress dissent against the war, or against government economic policies which benefit the few and hurt the many. Fearful citizens are less likely to speak out, demonstrate, or criticize.

But, someone might say, they have been successful because there weren't any more attacks after 9/11.

Well, I respond, let's do a test scenario, and spend all the money on current Homeland Security in some states, and change the money to my idea with heart disease and lifestyle in other states, and see which ones have more terrorist attacks, and which ones save more American lives. (my friend says, fine, but he wants to live in the states where it is the current system. this is just a question of whether you think screening grandmas makes you feel safer. it is psychological, but not empirically proven, security).

An Election Year's coming up, who is going to propose change Homeland Security to Eating Less Meat?

The new Carbon Share video

Carbon Share is a way to solve global warming by distributing emission rights to people and make polluters pay. Any cap and trade system should protect consumers, and not give windfall profits to polluters. Find out more at www.carbonshare.org.

Gone-zalez! Next, Cheney, please?

Getting rid of Gone-zalez is a relief. No one liked him. It was time for him to go. Along with his other bad deeds, he was preventing the Dems from doing an inquiry into the lies that led us into the war in Iraq. OK, Dems, Gone-zy is gone. Time to go after Cheney. Please don't find some bureaucratic pigeonhole, and spend the next 10 months going after some low-level administrator. I'm sure that the Deputy UnderSecretary of the Interior is doing bad stuff, and I'm sure you could bluster about it on C-Span for the next 10 months, and get to the bottom of it all, but the top evil doer in the Administration (now that Rumsfeld is gone) is the President of the Senate, (a.k.a. "PResident Evil: Apocalypse") Mr. Undisclosed Location, who works for an undisclosed branch of government. All evil deeds are traced back to him (and to his Exxon and Halliburton friends). Take him on, and change the tenor of the 2008 race. Don't distract yourselves and us with some low level administrator, and leave Level 2 of Rumsfeld Invaders unfinished.

What's changed since 1994?

Condi, Rummy, and Wolfie must have changed Dick's mind.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Bush tries to be Bartlett, pardoning Ziegler

Dubya may have recently seen the West Wing episode where President Bartlett pardons Communications Director Toby Ziegler. Bartlett struggled with the moral implications of a pardon, but at least in the TV show Ziegler's infraction had a moral undertone (trying to prevent the militarization of space, a theme of Rumsfeld Invaders). I doubt Dubya thought for 2 seconds about the decision. He just went with his gut. Being a loyal Bushie trumped honesty, ethics, and the law. Scooter Libby made no attempt at morality, he simply lied to protect Rove and Cheney's role in outing CIA agent Valerie Wilson. Dubya is sending a signal that political hits are worthy of reward. Happy July 4th everyone!

Adios Wolfie!

Rumsfeld's protege Paul Wolfowitz was forced to resign in disgrace from the World Bank refuge he fled to when he sensed that the Iraq quagmire he created would soon engulf the flailing neo-con agenda. Sorry, Wolfie, you can run, but you can't hide. The Europeans are draining the swamp you were hiding in. Now it's time for you to write your memoirs, and whine about how abused you were and are. The question is: will you come to regret your actions, or will you cover them up? Will it be "Fog of War II"? Or will it be "Neo-Con's intellectual perspective led to lots of destruction, but he can't face up to it, and is in denial about his messed up world view." C'mon, Wolfie, even Fukuyama says that neo-cons are messed up. Time for a neo-con 12-step program. You can join Thomas Friedman and become a "geo-green." It almost rhymes with neo-con, and it has a cool hyphen too. (Although, I don't know, if you became a geo-green, then people would run the other direction, so you better not.) The other aspect I've always been interested in is Wolfie's personal life. After the comb thing in Fahrenheit 911, you got to wonder about Wolfie's girlfriend. Sounds like a Condoleeza Rice-type. Black stilletto heels, gritted teeth, and a frown. But I don't know, maybe she's a nice woman. Idealistic to work for the World Bank, with the mission of lifting the poorest nations out of poverty. And it's true that women in Muslim countries need some advocates. (Sad record of accomplishments for the World Bank, funding dams and deforestation, causing climate change, and linking to harmful IMF policies- see Stiglitz and Sachs for references on that.) And poor choice in men. Wolfie was the worst one since McNamara. Another one bites the dust.

Billions wasted

I've been working on climate change policy, and encouraging a cap and trade system which auctions (sells) permits to companies, and uses the money for public goods (renewable energy, transit, research and development of new technologies), and to compensate consumers for fuel price increases on a per capita basis. Sounds good, right? It could raise $2 or $3 billion per year.

Other people are emailing me, saying, "Oh, we need a carbon tax, it'll solve all of our problems." It'll raise all this money and help with the transition. Well, a carbon tax would have to be very steep to change any behavior. Politicians are not into raising taxes, they lose elections for doing that. But even more important, let's look at a few numbers:

$504 billion. This is the money spent on the war on terror and Iraq between 2001 and 2007.

$344 billion. This is money spent on the Iraq war. Not counting the current $100 billion pending before Congress.

$213 billion. Cost of the War on Terror in 2006 alone (Rumsfeld's last year in office).

$2 trillion. Possible total long term cost of the Bush wars, once you count veteran's benefits, health care for all the soldiers with injuries, disabilities, Gulf War II syndrome, etc.

(These figures come from a USA Today article "Researchers weigh war's other costs", January 31, 2007)

In some ways, we don't need a cap and trade system, or a carbon tax. All we need to do is move all those war costs into renewable energy, energy efficiency, and a new war on climate change. Yeah, let's use the National Guard for its true purpose, to guard the nation (climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity and 50% of all species on the planet). Of course, a cap and trade system that refunds money to consumers through a rebate/dividend/share would be nice too. But the $3 billion versus $300 billion gives us a little perspective about how we do things when we think they are really important (the military-industrial complex) versus just give lip service, so that the Rumsfeld Invaders Blog will go away and leave us alone.

I want to hear 2008 candidates say, "Capitalism 3.0."

B-town steps up to Rumsfeld

Ah, B-town, for all your flaws, you still have some life left in you. If the resolution passes, it may qualify for a High score on Rumsfeld Invaders.

BERKELEY, Calif. Berkeley City Council members are set to consider signing on to an international lawsuit seeking a war crime investigation of Rumsfeld.

The suit was filed last November in Berlin by lawyers for inmates of Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay. It alleges former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered and condoned torture.

Abramoff and Borat?

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the focus of the video game JackAsstroids, wrote that he wished he could have hired Borat for a lawyer when he was under investigation.

Abramoff: 'Perhaps I could have hired Borat to represent me.'

Yag shamesh...