Flip through the cable news channels and you'll find that the right-wingers have finally gotten their act together on the Katrina issue. The ghastly FEMA response, they say, proves that guv-a-mint can't do anything right -- therefore, let's no longer fund disaster relief. Let Haliburton do it. Hey, those guys never waste a cent, right?
Suppose the London Times, circa 1888, claimed that the inability of the police to catch Jack the Ripper proved that the very idea of a police force was foolish, and that the government might as well cease funding all such enterprises. That's the kind of argument the conservatives are now peddling.
Two must-read stories cover the rightist attempt to capitalize on their own Katrina misdeeds. The first is provided by Arianna Huffington, who reports that "Pete Domenici is looking to ease environmental requirements on oil refineries, and George Allen wants to permanently repeal parts of the clean air act."
Good Lord! Even my Jack the Ripper analogy doesn't begin to cover the chutzpah of these suggestions. As last night's History Channel documentary made crystal clear, the degradation caused by oil refineries in the Gulf helped make a bad situation worse.
The other must-read post comes to us by way of Xymphora: "Disaster Capitalism in New Orleans."
No matter what kind of sow's ear these guys are forced to work with, they somehow always manage to sew together a silk purse.
6 comments:
I surfed by Fox this evening, and the guy was going on about how 'environmentalists' were the reason for the levee break in New Orleans.
I guess he couldn't find a way to blame Clinton...
We could only wish that Jack the Ripper was back so he could find Cannon and make a hooker out of him.
Communist fuck!
Gee, I thought wingnuts were part of the "Culture of Life," but here's one wishing you were murdered by a serial killer, Joe.
Of course, the wingnuts are also pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-gun control, and anti-social spending, so a death threat is hardly surprising... and certainly consistent with the Radical Right's hypocrisy.
The poor baby simply can't handle the truth, can he?
Seems you have missed all the commentary in your own threads, mott the hoople:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/08/damn-right-i-blame-bush.html
And I repeat:
Every single Democrat Senator voted AGAINST ratifying Kyoto in 1997, and Clinton let it ROT for three years, because he knew what it would do to the US economy to pursue it.
And you people Dare to blame Bush?
On August 24 of this year, The New York Times Book Review printed former Vice President Al Gore’s favorable review of Ross Gelbspan’s book “Boiling Point.” The book analyzes global warming and attacks the Bush administration for opposing the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
While I applaud Al Gore’s position on global warming, I don’t support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Apparently, I am in good company in opposing that Protocol as currently written, as I laid out in a letter to The Times Book Review that stated in part:
On July 25, 1997, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, along with 93 other senators (with five senators not voting and none voting in opposition) adopted a resolution stating that ‘the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.’ Shouldn’t someone who has held the office of vice president of the United States and who has sought the presidency disclose the facts, even when reviewing a book? The reason that Gore’s name is not found with the 95 others is that as vice president presiding over the Senate, he could not cast a vote unless there was a tie. On the Kyoto vote the result was 95 to 0 against the treaty.
I agree that the best way to ward off global warming is to reduce the use of fossil fuels, primarily coal and oil, and their derivatives such as gasoline. This can be done by a number of means such as conservation, developing alternative energy sources and increasing combustion engine efficiency.
The Kyoto Protocol imposes limits on the expansion of fossil fuel use and requires cutbacks. The countries most affected by the limitations or cutbacks called for by Kyoto are the developed countries, primarily the United States, which uses 25 percent of the world’s gasoline, and to a lesser degree, Japan, Russia and the European Union.
In response to my letter criticizing Gore for urging support of Kyoto, Gore wrote to The Times as follows:
The ‘Sense of the Senate’ resolution that Ed Koch refers to actually took place five months before the Kyoto Protocol was even written, and was aimed at providing guidance to the negotiators on general principles. During the political give-and-take over its wording, that resolution was eventually stated so broadly that even the strongest supporters of a tough treaty ended up supporting it. Indeed, the author of the resolution, Senator Robert Byrd, has publicly criticized the subsequent misrepresentation of its meaning by opponents of Kyoto. The fact that the Protocol was not ratified by the Senate during the two years between its signing and the end of the last administration is evidence of the vigorous opposition by the Republican Congress to confronting the global climate crisis.
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia wrote Resolution S. 98 that opposed ratification of Kyoto if it did not comply with certain concerns, the primary one being the exemption of developing nations like China and India from its requirements. The resolution was passed on July 25, 1997. The text of the Kyoto Protocol was ready for signature at the United Nations headquarters on March 16, 1998. The Protocol has not yet been ratified by Russia, whose signature is needed before it can become effective and binding on all signers.
As recently as October 30, 2003, Senator Byrd stated, “The Kyoto Protocol, in its current form, does not comply with the requirements of Senate Resolution 98.” He continued: “S. Res. 98 directed that any such treaty must include new scheduled commitments for the developing world in addition to any such requirements for industrialized nations but requirements would be binding and mandatory and lead to real reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases over time. This is clearly different than the minimal, vague, and voluntary commitments that we are currently pursuing.”
This was a reference to the Bush Administration. Byrd also emphasized that “developing nations, especially the largest emitters, need to be a part of any binding global climate change treaty.”
President Clinton and Al Gore were unsuccessful in getting the signers of Kyoto to include the developing nations. Knowing that the Kyoto Protocol would not be passed without the inclusion of developing countries in some way, Clinton did not even send the Protocol to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
Gore now blames Bush for not getting the parties of the Protocol to include developing countries under its mandates. This is an outcome which neither he nor Clinton had been able to accomplish during their eight years of office from 1993 to 2001. How could Bush be expected to succeed where they had failed?
China has since surpassed Japan in its use and importation of the world’s major energy source, oil, ranking second in use after the U.S. China is now one of the largest manufacturers of automobiles, with millions of new buyers joining those already in line to buy its Cadillac and Volkswagens and many other foreign brands licensed for manufacture in China. The aggregate population of China and India is in excess of 2 billion people.
Should we sign the Kyoto Protocol in its current form, as Al Gore appears to be urging, if those nations which have signed it decline to renegotiate the Protocol and include the developing nations? I don’t think so, and I don’t think you will find a single U.S. senator who urges that we do so under these conditions.
Senator John Kerry should be asked if he as president would submit the flawed Protocol to the Senate for ratification and if he were still senator would he vote for it.
Nice Site. We have Free Houses on my site. Please take a look mountain house plan
Post a Comment