Bush's Energy

"Confronting growing concerns over high energy prices, President Bush on Wednesday unveiled controversial plans to spur construction of new nuclear power plants, provide incentives to buy diesel vehicles and most novel of all: use some old military bases for oil refineries."

I'm always derided by other liberals for not being as pro-environment as they are, or even anti-environment. I find that to be a mischaracterization of my position on the environment. I am very pro-environment, and compared to the majority of the Republican party leadership, I am practically Greenpeace and PETA all rolled into one. But, as far as protecting all areas of wilderness from development, and as far as holding back nuclear power from being developed and some other environmental issues I find that there is a middle ground that can be taken. I am a moderate on the environment. It may be the issue where I am most moderate in my position. I do find current policy toward the environment to be poorly thought out and executed but there is a lack of awareness of issues by the general public, and that blame falls squarely on the media.

As far as Bush's plan goes, the Sierra Club and various other environmental groups have spoken against it. I find that to be a bit reactionary, because as Bush's policy proposals go, this one is very dead on. Yeah, I know nuclear energy has safety concerns and there is always the question of what to do with the waste, but in general, nuclear plants have worked out well for America. My favorite part of the proposal though, besides the diesel promotion, is the conversion of closed military bases to refineries. Being a Californian, we have seen more than our fair share of these closures. It pains me to see them sit idle in a state where property values are so high and usable land so scarce. There is the huge issue of housing, and converting bases to housing seems a good alternative. That is, until you factor in cleanup costs. By placing the majority of the burden of cleanup on the private sector and solving the problem of not having enough refineries in the U.S. to produce for our ever growing population is a winner to me. This can promote new job growth, jobs that pay well at that. And, California stands to see the majority of this development. For once, I stand with W here.

True Conservatives

"Yet, in Wednesday's 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to deny a rehearing to Schiavo's parents, Birch went out of his way to castigate Bush and congressional Republicans for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for governance of a free people - our Constitution."
Birch said he couldn't countenance Congress' attempt to "rob" federal courts of the discretion they're given in the Constitution. Noting that it had become popular among "some members of society, including some members of Congress," to denounce "activist judges," or those who substitute their personal opinions for constitutional imperatives, Birch said lawmakers embarked on their own form of unconstitutional activism."

We could truly use more voices like this in the political discourse today. Never thought a liberal would utter those words, right?

But it should be said that today's Republican party bears no resemblance to it's old self. It has been hijacked by social conservatives of the Christian Right and this group does not view the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land, it views the Bible as such. And this should put it at odds with every small government, libertarian leaning, tax cutting, states rights, true blue conservative Republican out there. But this isn't the case because this group is the lifeblood and fundraising force in the GOP now and they aren't ceding control anytime soon.

Judge Birch not only is a jurist in the "Scalia/Thomas" vein, but he has issued rulings that are socially conservative in nature, especially when it comes to sexual rights. But he is justifiably outraged that his party is disregarding the Constitution to further their political agenda.

But, my favorite part of this is that he speaks out against this new tactic among the Right to trash "activist judges", which means any judge that issues an opinion they don't agree with. Well, Birch is anything but an activist judge, and one ruling does not an activist judge make. The majority of judges that the Christian right (and Ann Coulter) tag as activist are Republican appointees. Ironic isn't it? Just goes to further display just how far the Republican party has strayed from its core principles in exchange for this sectarian agenda it pursues. I hereby encourage a call to action among real conservatives to take back their party. I enjoyed opposing you guys much more than these "vales and morals" voters. At least you guys respected the Consitution and played by the rules. But there common ground here. This constitutional crisis that the Christian right is hellbent on taking us to can and should be avoided, but you must speak out.

Poor Terry

No need for a quote here to start the post. We all know Terry Schiavo and her much-publicized medical condition. Although, there is a slim percentage of doubt that she did not want to be kept alive artificially, I can assert it is certain she would not want members of her family fighting publicly with her motionless body as a background prop. Congress grandstanding and Presidential meddling notwithstanding, Mrs. Schiavo has a right to end her life as she sees fit. Her physical state is sustained artificially as many doctors familiar with her condition can attest to. Although she is not on life support per se, she is incapable of sustaining life beyond respiration and other core bodily functions without outside interference. The real injustice is that the tape clips we are being forcefed by the media are from a longer tape, around 4 hours, that display the fact that Terry Schiavo is not responding to stimuli from her visitors as the clips we are being shown suggest. As humans, we have a kneejerk reaction that things that behave in human-like ways are somehow exhibiting emotions and higher level thought. We humanize pets and even appliances because our instinct to socialize runs to the core of who we are as people. The media is playing on this instinctual behavior to maintain the level of fervor that has swept the country over this case. Instead of giving us the full story on a case that gives us insight into the life or death situations that we all have been or will be forced to make, the media has used it as a ploy to gain ratings. One of the many ways that the media has been a disservice to the American people, especially in my generation. We can only hope that she will be given every comfort in her last hours, and that her wishes to die on her own terms are granted.

Judicial Appointment Armageddon

"There is nothing in the Constitution requiring the Senate to "confirm or reject appointments by a simple majority vote." The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires the consent of the Senate before judicial nominees are appointed. The Rules of Proceedings Clause gives the Senate the power to determine the method of consent. It doesn't matter how many times Frist says it: There is no requirement for the Senate to confirm or reject a nomination. No vote means no consent: And that's OK. "

The above "The Nation" article by Judd Legum and Christy Harvey really explains point-counterpoint why the Republicans incessant whine about why Bush's 10 extremist (out of 214) judges nominated to the Federal judiciary do not get an up or down vote in the Senate is really just political posturing. At face value, it sounds fair enough, but at the heart of the issue is whether the majority should be able to dominate the minority. And in the Senate, the Constitution is clear that that should not happen. If this were the House, parliamentary procedure and House rules do not allow the side with fewer votes to hold up business because the Framers set aside the House as the arm of Congress where the larger states would be able to throw their weight around, in a manner of speaking. Thats why the number of reps you have is tied directly to state population. But, in the Senate, rules are different. Each state gets two, count em two, Senators. No matter what. And that was to allow in our federal style of government the little states to be able to speak up and not allow the biggies to bully them around. Likewise, in the House, the side with the majority of votes is always allowed to push through its legislation and debate is limited to a certain amount of time. But in the Senate, many things die in committee or when they reach the floor can be stalled by a Senator speaking for hours- or even days-upon end. And, filibusters, are "a legitimate Congressional privilege." So, I hope the American people do not take this issue at face value and actually pay attention to the debate. I know civics and government aren't exactly the areas of expertise for most Americans, but this is one instance where knowing a little bit more pays off quite a bit.

Most Favored Candidates For Democratization

"As a recent RAND Corporation paper on public diplomacy put it, "Misunderstanding of American values is not the principal source of anti-Americanism." Sometimes foreigners understand us just fine; they simply don't like what they see. The study concludes that "some U.S. policies have been, are, and will continue to be major sources of anti-Americanism." (Italics are in the original.) It didn't matter what ads Tutwiler produced: Her audience already distrusted Brand America."

Boy, do I love Slate. I go into "Slate withdrawal" on the weekends when at the most all that is posted is a daily roundup of news events. This quote taken from a Fred Kaplan column today eloquently points out why the rest of the world hates us. It really irks me that everytime someone (usually from the left) speaks out against U.S. policy, they automatically get tagged (usually by someone on the right) as "anti-American". Its such a ridiculous assertion (most of the time) that responding to it only lends it credibility as an attack. When I disagree openly with U.S. policy and the Bush administration agenda, it doesn't come from a deep-seated hatred for this country, it comes from a desire to see this country continue to thrive and to see it's people live happy lives. The standard progressive agenda of a living wage, universal education and health care, reasonable business regulation, pro-environmental policies, gun control, freedom of choice, and a sensible crime & justice policy are, taken all together, intended to give people a chance to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as guaranteed by our Constitution. How can we expect those who start the race far behind the others to perform just as well as those with a head start? America has taken on this new agenda under Bush to spread democracy and freedom around the world. We speak with flourishing rhetoric about the fruits of democracy and the improvements to quality of life that will bring abroad, but at home, we have allowed such an imbalance between the haves and have-nots that our own democracy is in danger. The whole world has their eyes on America. We may present the image of having our house in order to "Most Favored Candidates for Democratization", but news has no borders, and people around the world are aware of the plight of the downtrodden in our backyard. They are aware of the special interests that control foreign and domestic policy in Washington D.C. and statehouses across the country. They must wonder if what we call democracy is worth losing their life over.

Hitting The Ground Running...

"Public Would Significantly Alter Administration's Budget
Would Reduce Deficit, Cut Defense Sharply, and Increase Spending on Education, Job Training, Renewable Energy, Veterans
A new poll finds that the American public would significantly alter the Bush administration’s recently proposed federal budget. Presented a breakdown of the major areas of the proposed discretionary budget and given the opportunity to redistribute it, respondents made major changes.
The most dramatic changes were deep cuts in defense spending, a significant reallocation toward deficit reduction, and increases in spending on education, job training, reducing reliance on oil, and veterans. These changes were favored by both Republicans and Democrats, though the changes were generally greater for Democrats. "

Makes you wonder about the American people doesn't it? They soundly reject his budget proposal and cut and chop all of his favorite programs (defense, space exploration) and beef up his rejects (education, U.N. spending). After the events of 09/02(2004), I lost about 99% of the hope I had for this country to recognize that GWB does not share their "values". Yes, he talks a good game about faith, Jeebus and how he loves his philosophical diatribes that are logged in the Good Book. But as Jeebus himself said, "...faith without works is dead." So, we know he has the faith part down, which leaves us with that sticky issue of works. Chief among these works, and the right and left will agree with this being the defining matter of his presidency, is the Iraq war. Poorly planned, ill-conceived, and based upon false/changing premises. It was also the first official military action in which the U.S. was the aggressor. Now, if Jeebus was anything, he was a pacifist. Would a man of faith be practicing works that are in tandem with his "faith" if the matter he is most known for is an act of aggression? Would this same man also call himself a "war president"? Well would he?