Election Snippet: McCain on the Environment and Global Warming

Today’s election snippet:

John McCain on the environment.

McCain often talks a good talk about environmental issues. He’s no dummy, and he knows issues like global warming are important to voters. But according to this article in Salon.com:

All you have to do is look at his voting record. It reveals that McCain has long been one of the strongest opponents of clean energy in Congress, with a record matching that of James Inhofe, the most hardcore global-warming denier in the Senate, who comes from the heart of the oil patch in Oklahoma.

Read the whole article. It really is quite astonishing. For someone who so publicly prides himself on being a “straight talker” and a “maverick,” he sure does talk out of both sides of his mouth… and his voting record sure does line up with the hard-core conservative Republican Party.

Which is bad enough when it comes to things like abortion and gay rights.

But here’s the thing about global warming. If global warming doesn’t get handled, no other political issue will matter. If global warming doesn’t get handled — game over. The human race will be dead or in chaos, and issues like abortion and gay rights, health care and immigration, religious freedom and national defense, will be about as irrelevant as you can get.

And as much as we don’t need political leaders who deny global warming and pretend it isn’t important, we even more don’t need political leaders who deny that they deny it. We don’t need leaders who lead us to believe that they take global warming seriously and are planning to take real action… when, in reality, they’re voting with stinking rich oil companies to make them stinking richer, and blowing smoke up our asses.

Election Snippet: McCain on the Environment and Global Warming
{advertisement}

Election Snippet: Nobel Scientists for Obama

In this video, Marty Chalfie, one of this year’s winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, explains why he — along with 61 other Nobel Laureates in science — is supporting Barack Obama.

I’ll be talking more in future Election Snippets about the role of science in this election… and the respect, or lack thereof, that the candidates have shown towards science. But I need to post and run today, so today, it’s just the video.

Video below the fold. Enjoy!

Continue reading “Election Snippet: Nobel Scientists for Obama”

Election Snippet: Nobel Scientists for Obama

Election Snippet: Sarah Palin’s Terrorist Associations

Aiplogo
Normally in elections, I don’t like playing the “guilt by association” game. If you’ve been in politics for any length of time, chances are you’ve worked with, or accepted money from, people you have some serious disagreements with. That’s sort of how politics and government works.

So unless I’m convinced that Senator Blow’s connection with a troubling political organization or a crazy religious leader is strong enough to suggest that they themselves share those troubling/ crazy views, I’m not going to give them too much shit for it.

But if they, themselves, are playing the “guilt by association” game against their opponent? Playing it to the balcony, loudly and repeatedly, for all that it’s worth?

The way Sarah Palin has been doing with the “Barack Obama once served on a committee with former Weather Underground member William Ayers, therefore Barack Obama advocates terrorism” schtick?

Game on, baby.

Which brings me to this troubling story in Salon.com about Sarah Palin’s husband… and his membership for seven years in the Alaska Independence Party. An organization that advocates Alaska’s secession from the United States — and that has repeatedly advocated violence and armed insurrection against the Federal government.

A key quote from the founder (now deceased) of the AIP, Joe Vogler:

When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets. In the federal government are the biggest liars in the United States, and I hate them with a passion. They think they own [Alaska]. There comes a time when people will choose to die with honor rather than live with dishonor. That time may be coming here. Our goal is ultimate independence by peaceful means under a minimal government fully responsive to the people. I hope we don’t have to take human life, but if they go on tramping on our property rights, look out, we’re ready to die.

And in 1993, shortly before his death, Vogler was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to to denounce United States tyranny and to demand Alaska’s freedom… sponsored by Iran.

Oh, just a reminder:

This is Sarah Palin’s husband. Not some guy she served on a committee with once upon a time. Her actual husband belonged to this organization. For seven years. And Sarah Palin herself supported them enough that, this year, as governor, she told them, “Keep up the good work. And God bless you.”

As Salon writer David Talbot writes:

Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.

Imagine indeed.

Spread the word. (And thanks to Jocelyn for the tip!)

Election Snippet: Sarah Palin’s Terrorist Associations

Election Snippet: McCain’s Temper

Today’s election snippet: John McCain’s temper.

You’ve probably heard or read bits here and there about John McCain’s volatility and difficulty controlling his temper. This video pulls many of those bits together. It makes it clear that this is not an isolated incident or two: this is a pattern, a central part of the man’s temperament.

And it’s not a temperament that we want running the country. It is not a temperament that we want engaging in international relations in a highly explosive period of human history. It is not a temperament that we want in a time of domestic crisis and extreme national polarization. And it is damn well not a temperament that we want with the finger on the nuclear button.

Oh, the thing I find really interesting: Many of the people speaking in this video? Republicans. This isn’t about Democrats smearing an opponent. Among people who know McCain, this is a serious concern across the political spectrum

Video below the fold.

Continue reading “Election Snippet: McCain’s Temper”

Election Snippet: McCain’s Temper

Election Snippet: Sarah Palin’s Supreme Ignorance

My election snippets haven’t gone after Sarah Palin in a couple of days, so I think it’s time to return to that very fertile ground. This is an excerpt from the now- infamous Katie Couric interview… an excerpt in which Palin was unable to name any Supreme Court decisions, other than Roe v. Wade, that she disagreed with.

The video is loaded with inanities, and I could pick them apart all day. But when I first heard this video, here’s what I wanted to scream at the top of my lungs:

DredScott

Dred Scott.

I learned about Dred Scott in junior high. The day it was decided is generally considered the bleakest day in the history of the Supreme Court. It was the day the Supreme Court said, “Slavery? Sure!” If you can’t think of a single Supreme Court decision that you disagree with, surely you should be able to come up with that one.

I can think of others, too. Plessy v. Ferguson. Bowers v. Hardwick. The one, I can’t remember the name of it right now, that said corporations have the same Constitutional rights as people. Just off the top of my head. And I’m not running for Vice-President. I’m not even governor of a state. Hell, I’m not even a lawyer. I’m just a layperson with a liberal arts B.A., gassing on in my blog.

You’d think that someone who was running for the second highest office in the country would know enough about the history of interpretations of the Constitution — the foundation of the country she supposedly loves so much — to be able to, you know, think of one.

And I’ll say it again: A heartbeat away from the Presidency. The Presidency of an elderly man with at least a 1 in 3 chance of dying in office.

Oh, yeah. Here’s the video. Below the fold.

Continue reading “Election Snippet: Sarah Palin’s Supreme Ignorance”

Election Snippet: Sarah Palin’s Supreme Ignorance

Election Snippet: The McCain Women’s Clinic

Today’s election snippet:

John McCain’s record on reproductive rights and women’s health.

Which, in a word, sucks.

We have an ever- so- charming list of 10 things that Planned Parenthood thinks everyone needs to know about John McCain. (Just 10 of the reasons that the Planned Parenthood Action Fund gave him a zero percent rating. You heard me — zero.)

In case you think they might be distorting the record, we have a collection of McCain’s own words and deeds on Roe V. Wade, sex education, birth control access, and access to information about abortion.

And we have a fun little video about the McCain Women’s Clinic.

Video below the fold.

Continue reading “Election Snippet: The McCain Women’s Clinic”

Election Snippet: The McCain Women’s Clinic

The Harm Reduction Model of Politics

I’ve talked before about the harm reduction model of life.

Today, I want to talk about the harm reduction model of politics.

I want to talk about why you often need to vote for people who you aren’t 100% in agreement with, and even have serious doubts about.

And I want to talk about why we don’t need to see this as “choosing the lesser of two evils.” I want to look at it in a more optimistic, positive way — as harm reduction.

Harm_reduction

A very quick summary about harm reduction first: In public health, harm reduction is the idea that you don’t have to completely eliminate a problem to usefully address it. In fact, trying to eliminate it can be counterproductive. It sometimes makes more sense instead to try to reduce the degree of the problem, and reduce the harm done by the problem. (That’s an oversimplification, but it’ll do for now.)

Greta’s Harm Reduction Model of Life takes this principle and applies it more broadly, to life in general. Even if you can’t completely solve a problem or make it go away, it is still worthwhile to work on making it better. If you can’t fit a perfect exercise program into your life, some exercise is still better than none; if you can’t single- handedly solve global warming, it’s still a good idea to reduce your own carbon footprint. Harm reduction isn’t always the appropriate approach to life, but it does offer a way to be both an optimist and a realist: a way to be hopeful about the future and positive about your own power to affect it, without being deluded or willfully ignorant about limitations and harsh realities.

Today, I want to apply this principle to electoral politics. And specifically, to the 2008 Presidential election.

Elections — especially elections where there are only two candidates who stand any real chance of winning — are often seen as choosing “between the lesser of two evils.” Sometimes this phrase sincerely means, “two people who are both appalling and who have very little difference between them.” But often, it gets used to mean, “two people, neither of whom I agree with 100% about everything.”

And I don’t think we need to look at that as a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I think we can look at it as harm reduction.

Case in point:

BarackObamaportrait

Do I think Barack Obama will be a perfect President? No.

Do I think he will always act as I want him to, without ever disappointing me or pissing me off? No.

But do I think he will significantly reduce the harm that has been caused by the W. Bush Presidency — and that would continue to be caused by a McCain Presidency?

Yes. Absolutely. By a tremendous amount.

This isn’t a “There’s no difference between the two candidates” situation. There is a massive difference between the candidates. On the war. On the regulation of the financial industry. On abortion. On gay rights. On health care. On the environment. On virtually every issue that matters to most progressives.

And if you think there’s no discernible difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, I suggest you remember what life was like when Clinton was Pres… and ponder what life has been like under W.

Clinton obama debate

I’ve heard progressives and liberals threaten to sit out this election or vote third party because Obama is not a perfect candidate. I’ve heard people threaten to sit out this election or vote third party because they think Obama was mean to Hillary Clinton in the primary; because he’s trying to finesse the same-sex marriage question in a way that’s kind of weaselly; because he has a fairly strong religious faith and dammit, they want a rational atheist in the White House; because he disagrees with them on some particular issue or other that they feel strongly about. Even if he agrees with them on 90% of everything else.

And I’m sorry if this sounds harsh — but I don’t think that’s very grown-up.

Tom tomorrow

There’s a wonderful cartoon by by Tom Tomorrow — I’m sorry that I can’t find it right now — that addresses this “lesser of two evils” question. In it, an assortment of people are pondering unpleasant choices, and saying things like, “I wonder if I should put up with this toothache — or go to the dentist?” “I wonder if I should pay this high tax bill — or go to prison?” And he points out that adult life is full of difficult decisions. Adult life is full of gray areas; situations where you have to decide which of two conflicting values you value most; choices where none of your options are what you ideally would want.

I don’t think we have to see this as a choice between the lesser of two evils. I think we can see it as harm reduction.

Barack_Obama_2008_Kuwait_10

And as gray areas and hard choices go… I don’t know about you, but this one actually seems pretty damn easy. Obama is smart, thoughtful, capable, diplomatic, incredibly well-informed, something that vaguely resembles sane, and more or less in agreement with me on most of what I care about. I am not going to cut off my nose — and the noses of everyone else who has to live in this increasingly fucked-up country — to take a hard-core principled stand on spiting my face.

Look, I get it. I get the need to send signals to — oh, say, just for instance — the Democratic Party, that if they keep taking the left for granted they’re going to lose them. And I get that sometimes, you just can’t stomach it. (Many years back, there was an election for San Francisco City Attorney in which both candidates were so utterly vile, I couldn’t bear to vote for either one… so I wound up writing in Perry Mason.)

But I would argue — strongly and passionately — that this is not that election.

This isn’t a city attorney’s race, or even a race for mayor or governor. And this isn’t 1996, when we could vote for Nader because Clinton was in the bag.

It’s too close an election to take a risk on.

And there is way, way the hell too much at stake.

Global warming

Our country — and our planet — is not just in crisis. It’s in about sixteen different crises, all of which are severe. We’re in a severe financial crisis; a disastrous war; an ecological crisis that’s already destabilizing our planet and could make it unfit for human life. Civil liberties are in a shambles. The infrastructure is in a shambles. Government accountability is in a shambles. I could go on, and on, and on.

This is not the time to be a single- issue voter. And it is not the time to be sending a message to the Democratic Party.

This is not the time to be taking a principled stand about, say, Obama’s position on national health care… and taking a chance of sending someone to the White House who is an ardent hawk in a disastrous war; an ardent deregulator in a financial crisis largely caused by deregulation; an ardent wuss about global warming in a time when the need for action on global warming is urgent verging on desperate. And who, what’s more, is elderly, likely to die in office, and has a running mate who is both flagrantly incompetent and batshit insane.

This is the time to be doing whatever you possibly can to reduce the massive harm that has been done to our country.

Obama_hope

Will President Barack Obama solve all these crises? Will he single- handedly usher in a new era of peace, prosperity, and harmony with nature?

No.

Will he always be principled and firm on the issues that matter most to us? Will he only ever compromise in the ways we would want him to compromise, or on issues that we don’t really care about all that much?

Probably not.

But will his Presidency make things better? Will it increase the quality of our lives? Will it be a far, far better Presidency — and a far, far better life for most non- stinking- rich Americans — than the one we’d get under John McCain?

Yes. Without a doubt.

If you disagree with Obama about one or more issues, then — once he’s elected — by all means, make your voice heard. Scream and shout. Hold his feet to the fire. As a citizen, that’s more than just your right — that’s your job. And if you think we should have a strong third party, then by all means, work to build it from a local level up.

But this election is way too important to screw around with.

Please don’t fail to act because you can’t act perfectly.

The Harm Reduction Model of Politics

Election Snippet: “Greed and Corruption”

In today’s Election Snippet: The Number One thing I noticed about the Vice-Presidential debate.

Sarah Palin kept talking about the “corruption and greed” in Wall Street that led to the current financial crisis.

But she had not one thing single to say about what she would do to rein it in.

“Greed and corruption” was clearly a mantra. She knows that people are pissed at greedy, corrupt bankers and rich financial muckety-mucks, so she chimed in over and over to say Bad Things about them. But she’s certainly not going to say, “The financial industry needs to be better regulated.” That’s counter to the Republican true belief in the power of the free market to fix all problems, to cure cancer and find lost puppies and bring peace and prosperity to all people across the galaxy. And it would remind people that eight years of Republican rule and deregulation and sucking the collective cock of the stinking rich was a huge part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

No, no, no. Better to just try to make people think you feel their pain and anger… while conveniently ignoring that your party is the one inflicting it, and utterly failing to offer any plans for what you’re going to do about it.

Election Snippet: “Greed and Corruption”

Top Ten Other Catastrophes That Fundamentalists Blame On Gay People

So, as you may have already read, Christian Civil League of Maine Executive Director Michael Heath has recently written that the cause of the current U.S. financial crisis is — not deregulation, not unchecked greed, not insane short-sightedness on the part of the financial muckety-mucks, but…

…wait for it…

Pink_triangle.svg
gay people.

No, really.

More specifically, God’s wrath at gay people.

In yet another example of God’s spectacularly lousy aim. (I mean, if he was trying to punish the sinfully homosexual San Francisco in the 1989 earthquake, why was the overwhelmingly heterosexual Marina district hit the hardest, and the overwhelmingly homosexual Castro district left relatively unharmed?)

So since gay people seem to have such astonishing power to destroy (our secret is out at last! Now I’ll have to kill you all!), I thought I’d come up with a list of the Top Ten Other Catastrophes That Fundamentalists Blame On Gay People.

Cubs_logo

10: The Chicago Cubs.

9: The fact that your cousin ran out of liquor at his bachelor party.

8: The ultimate heat-death of the universe. (Or the ultimate Big Freeze of the universe. Take your pick.)

7: The fact that, after having lived in this apartment for three years, Ingrid and I still have a storage room piled full of unpacked boxes. (No, wait. That is the fault of gay people.)

Black_Death

6: The death of a third to a half of the population of Europe in the Middle Ages due to the Black Death. Retroactively. Our power for evil is so vast, and God’s wrath towards it is so massive, that it can strike backwards in time.

5: “Star Wars,” Episodes 1-3.

Austin scarlett

4: Austin Scarlett getting voted off “Project Runway,” and Wendy Pepper making it to the final three at Bryant Park.

3: The fact that Jane Austen only wrote seven complete novels.

2: The Boston Molasses Disaster of 1919. (No kidding. Look it up.)

And the Number One catastrophe that fundamentalists blame on gay people:

Firefly

1: The cancellation of “Firefly.”

Please chime in with your own suggestions!

Top Ten Other Catastrophes That Fundamentalists Blame On Gay People

Election Snippet: The Palin Presidency “like a really bad Disney movie”

Today’s election snippet comes from, of all people, Matt Damon. I know. I was surprised, too. But he turns out to be smart, and thoughtful, and articulate, and kind of weirdly radical. There’s no new news in this, btw: it’s just a really perceptive, really scary analysis of the potential Palin Presidency.

Reminder: If McCain becomes President, Palin will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. A very weak heartbeat. McCain has, conservatvely estimated, a 1 in 3 chance of dying in office. In his first term alone.

A vote for McCain is a vote for Palin. Remember that, and watch this video. (Video below the jump.)

Continue reading “Election Snippet: The Palin Presidency “like a really bad Disney movie””

Election Snippet: The Palin Presidency “like a really bad Disney movie”