Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Now I understand the nickname for Richard
Thanks again to Daniel Radosh, for pointing me to this spectacular photo.
I doubt he will ever win a national election, but now I get why Dick Gephardt is popular at home.
Poll Results
The results are in:
Kashei: Rich, not stupid. (unanimous)
Rick: Boring and uninteresting. (contested)
EPA's spirit of "collaboration" means at least three extra years of poisoned babies
Mike Leavitt, EPA’s new administrator, made his first public statement since he took the job yesterday. It was a bland speech, somewhat rambling, peppered with dull anecdotes as strained vehicles for palliative sound bites intended to appeal to both sides of the environmental debate. But one thing Leavitt said interested me. He spoke of the importance of “collaboration” in addressing environmental issues. But, he assured his audience “[c]ollaboration is not code for compromise. It is the pursuit of what’s possible checked only by the realities of what is workable.”
Well, that’s a nice sound bite, no question. But is it true? The proof, as they say, is in the policy, and this EPA’s new proposal on mercury control is a clear example of compromise.
Perhaps it is unfair to blame the new administrator, barely a month into his job, for policies that may have been in the works since before he has been at the job. Then again, he hardly distanced himself from those policies. To the contrary, he took a classically Bush-ian approach: he touted what is essentially a fundamental step backward in environmental regulation as progress. Leavitt announced that his EPA would “move forward with the first-ever regulations addressing mercury emissions from power plants”. What he didn’t say was that the Bush administration has radically re-written regulations that would otherwise have gone into effect in two weeks, and in a way that smacks of “collaboration” with the power plants.
Leavitt mentioned technology several times in his speech. “More. Better. Faster. Newer. That’s the tune you will hear from me,” he crowed. That may be the tune, but the dance is “Not too much. Not too Fast. Better for the Industry.” The existing plan called for mercury reduction using “maximum achievable technology”. The new plan calls instead for a more flexible, cap-and-trade system, under which power plants would be assigned “points”, which they could buy and sell, allowing them to pollute more or less depending on the number of points they had. The cap-and-trade system is a viable method of environmental regulation—it has been successful in combatting acid rain, for example. However, even environmentalists who have supported cap-and-trade for other pollutants say that it is a dangerous approach for mercury, because of its extreme toxicity.
Coal-fired power plants are the nation’s largest source of unregulated airborne mercury pollution, sending an estimated 48 tons into the atmosphere annually. The airborne mercury quickly falls into our lakes, streams and rivers, thus entering the food chain and threatening public health, especially for children and pregnant women who eat tainted fish. The EPA itself has acknowledged that “mercury has been identified as the toxic of greatest concern among all the air toxics emitted from power plants,” causing neurological and developmental defects, particularly in pregnant women and children.
Leavitt and others in the Bush administration will no doubt tell us that the new proposal is a grand step forward. Proponents of the plan will point out that it will reduce annual output of mercury pollution from power plants by nearly 30% by 2010. They probably won’t mention that this would still leave 34 tons a year in emissions, eight tons more than the limit promised by the Bush administration as part of its “Clear Skies” initiative. Or that the plan set to go into effect on December 15 of this year, the plan Leavitt’s EPA is about to replace, would have required pollution controls by 2007, not 2010.
The CDC recently found that 8 percent of women of childbearing age have mercury in their blood exceeding levels deemed safe by the EPA. Do you know more than 12 women who might become pregnant between 2007 and 2010? If so, you might ask if any of them is pleased with the “cooperation” between the EPA and the energy industry that has resulted in a giant step back from the rules that would have gone into effect two weeks from now. That new spirit of “cooperation” makes it far more likely that at least one of them will have a baby damaged by mercury poisoning.
Read Less...
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Blog King
And the Final Round begins...
The three Blogs left standing are:
Adrian Warnock
eTALKINGHEAD
and
Evangelical Outpost
Here is the Challenge Question this week from King of Fools:
You are given the opportunity to secretly interview Saddam Hussein. Compose 5 questions that you would ask the recently deposed Iraqi dictator.
Also speaking of awards Wizbang, one of our permanant judges, has started the 2003 Weblog Awards at his site! Check it out!
Read Less...
New Poll
In light of Kashei’s refusal to answer my questions because I have not earned her respect (see post below), I’m asking visitors to Rick’s Cafe to answer at least one: Is Kashei rich, stupid, or both? You may wish to visit her weblog, Alarming News Spot On, to inform your response before voting.
Editor’s Note: I (Rick) got the name of Kashei’s site wrong. it has been corrected.
Bush supporters continue to elevate the discourse
I’d like to share with you, loyal readers, a little exchange that occured in the comments section over at Clareified.
The always delightful Dawn posted an impassioned plea for a return to objective journalism in the wake of the President’s recent “secret” visit to the Baghdad airport (by “objective”, she apparently means “doesn’t intentionally lie to the at the request of the government”—ridiculously high standards, if you ask me). In response to a comment suggesting that the American people had paid an awful lot of money for the President to have a photo-op, one of Dawn’s frequent readers suggested that most people in this country don’t think about “politics” (i.e., the cost of the president’s actions), but rather focus on “real stuff” like “car payments and kids and school”. She further opined, however, that the Baghdad photo-op “changed some opinions . . . from not caring to admiring."
I took issue with that, as it seemed that Kashei (an ardent Bush-lover) was implicitly conceding that the visit was a bit of costly fluff that had the intended effect of duping the ignorant masses into admiring Bush (a cowardly draft-dodger) for no good reason. So I responded (you can read the whole thing here):
Kashei: Do you count yourself among the ignorant unwashed who ignore Shrub’s damaging policies and actions and just think he’s “cool” because he likes to dress up in military costumes and pretend to be a part of an institution and a country he turned his back on years ago? Because every once in a while it sounds like you might be aware of how pernicious this administration is, and I can only conclude that you just don’t give a shit. Which leads me to conclude that you are either rich or stupid (or some combination thereof). If you’re going to give yourself over to hero-worship, there are certainly better candidates.
Apparently, I struck a nerve, because Kashei, always eloquent, outdid herself. Without actually making any arguments or addressing my concerns (I raised more issues and asked more questions in a
subsequent comment (actually 3 due to character limitations)), she called me a “retard”, “crazy”, “uninteresting”, and “a stereotype”, called my arguments “intellectually lazy” and “boring”, and suggested that I “have no idea what real people are like”, and “should really get out more”. When I pointed out that she hadn’t actually responded to any of the issues I’d raised she played her trump card: “I’m just not so into arguing with people I can’t respect,” she wrote.
Can’t argue with that.
Read Less...
Bush Responds to McCain Attack
CNN reported this weekend that “Leading Republican Sen. John McCain Sunday berated fellow lawmakers for ‘spending money like a drunken sailor’ and said President Bush was also to blame for pushing the nation toward higher interest rates and inflation."
Bush responded to that criticism at a photo op at Dynamic Metal Treating in Canton, Michigan yesterday. “Now, people like Johnny McCain are saying that my administration is spending money ‘like a drunken sailor’. Well, to people who would attack the compassion of a government willing to drug this nation’s old folks, I say this: I don’t know what a drunken sailor spends like, but I do know what a drunk, coked-up draft-dodger spends like, and let me tell you, Mr. McCain, drugs are expensive. More expensive than most of our parents and grandparents can afford. And you often have to go into some sketchy neighborhoods, where you wouldn’t want your Momma going. So to those who would criticize our spending, I say, ‘hey, it’s not my money’. And I’ve got plenty of my own. And so does my Momma. Love ya, Momma.”
Monday, December 01, 2003
Remembrance Forgotten
In today’s NY Times Maureen Dowd wrote a critique of the 8 designs for the World Trade Center Memorial that gave words to a sentiment I have been feeling since the first drafts of such designs were released, and far more eloquently than I could express. These “memorials" seem more interested in helping us forget than in aiding us to remember. The ephemeral lights, reflecting ponds, and expansive gardens that inhabit the dynamic artist renderings of the proposals reflect better the attitude of a day spa, Japanese garden or modern art exhibit, not the painful reality of the almost 3,000 dead in the most costly attack to ever touch American soil.
I would prefer a memorial in which I was forced to face the reality of 9/11 undiluted by smokes and mirrors. I would weep as I confronted the reality of 2,819 deaths and I would want to be forced to consider the geo-political situation that led to a group of people sinking to the lowest depths possible in order to conduct an attack against America’s innocent population. Then I would step outside the memorial, into a world where our government was learning from the attacks and taking a more vested interest in world politics, and the colossal importance of a growing population of poor, disenfranchised, and angry world citizens. A growing population of ill-contents, with nothing to lose, who are easily manipulated to enter the ranks of an army of evil. A country that was exerting its overwhelming power to build alliances and coalitions. A country committed to spreading wealth, prosperity and freedom throughout the world, not just making the rich richer at other’s expense. I would exit the memorial into such a world and then I would wipe my tears away, and I would smile, because I would know that despite the tragic events of 9/11, I am living in a country where from the ashes of tragedy comes a vision of new hope and a better world.
Instead these eight proposals seem resigned to providing exactly the opposite. Instead of a weighty reminder of tragic time, these memorials offer an airy refuge, a fantasy of light and color. Gardens and reflecting pools where we can clear our minds and forget our worries, if only for a moment, before we must return to the reality of crumbling alliances, unilateral pre-emption and Republican “compassion”.
Perhaps then, I am saddened to say, these designs are exactly right for the world in which we live. Still, I hope for the future.
Read Less...
Remembrance Forgotten
In today’s NY Times Maureen Dowd wrote a critique of the 8 designs for the World Trade Center Memorial that gave words to a sentiment I have been feeling since the first drafts of such designs were released, and far more eloquently than I could express. These “memorials" seem more interested in helping us forget than in aiding us to remember. The ephemeral lights, reflecting ponds, and expansive gardens that inhabit the dynamic artist renderings of the proposals reflect better the attitude of a day spa, Japanese garden or modern art exhibit, not the painful reality of the almost 3,000 dead in the most costly attack to ever touch American soil.
I would prefer a memorial in which I was forced to face the reality of 9/11 undiluted by smokes and mirrors. I would weep as I confronted the reality of 2,819 deaths and I would want to be forced to consider the geo-political situation that led to a group of people sinking to the lowest depths possible in order to conduct an attack against America’s innocent population. Then I would step outside the memorial, into a world where our government was learning from the attacks and taking a more vested interest in world politics, and the colossal importance of a growing population of poor, disenfranchised, and angry world citizens. A growing population of ill-contents, with nothing to lose, who are easily manipulated to enter the ranks of an army of evil. A country that was exerting its overwhelming power to build alliances and coalitions. A country committed to spreading wealth, prosperity and freedom throughout the world, not just making the rich richer at other’s expense. I would exit the memorial into such a world and then I would wipe my tears away, and I would smile, because I would know that despite the tragic events of 9/11, I am living in a country where from the ashes of tragedy comes a vision of new hope and a better world.
Instead these eight proposals seem resigned to providing exactly the opposite. Instead of a weighty reminder of tragic time, these memorials offer an airy refuge, a fantasy of light and color. Gardens and reflecting pools where we can clear our minds and forget our worries, if only for a moment, before we must return to the reality of crumbling alliances, unilateral pre-emption and Republican “compassion”.
Perhaps then, I am saddened to say, these designs are exactly right for the world in which we live. Still, I hope for the future.
Read Less...
Congratulations!
I would like to congratulate Donald Rumsfeld on his “Foot in Mouth" award and also Arnold Schwarzenegger on receiving the runner up nominee. Maybe next year George.
Congratulations!
I would like to congratulate Donald Rumsfeld on his “Foot in Mouth" award and also Arnold Schwarzenegger on receiving the runner up nominee. Maybe next year George.
And I didn't do so good in High School
I caught a great show last night. One that I suggest everyone out there go catch while it can still be caught. “We’re All Dead” is a series of brilliant parodies of some of the classics. Oedipus Rex, Kafka’s Metamorphoses and Hamlet are performed as hysterical musicals. The plays would be worth seeing even by people unfamiliar with the underlying works, but the more familiar you are with the originals, the better. (Ask Rick. He’ll tell you the same.)
So here is the challenge: Do you have a sense of humor? A single literary bone in your body? An evening to kill? A residence in the New York City area? Get tickets to We’re All Dead here.
The playwright’s blog is worth a read also.
