AlterNet Blogs

AlterNet's focused blogging

John McCain: Eco-Warrior
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 13, 2008 at 8:19 AM.

Yikes, it's really true. John McCain is running for president as a tree-hugging liberal.

No, not an all-the-time environmentalist -- rather, as a swing-state-savvy, targeted-message-peddling, hoping-to-pick-up- the-votes-of-lifestyle-liberals-who-want-to-address-climate- change-on-the-cheap murky-shade-of-green Republican.

So, today, in the battleground state of Oregon, where a reverence for the outdoors requires that Republican contenders greenwash their appeals, McCain's campaign will begin airing a new television commercial that essentially says: "Look, I'm not like George Bush and Dick Cheney. I don't live in la-la land when it comes to global warming. I actually believe in something I like to call 'science.'"

The senator -- who broke a little bit with Bush and Cheney on environmental issues, but who never really lined up with the serious Republican environmentalists who were isolated by the administration and burn-the-planet GOP leaders like Tom DeLay -- is reinforcing the message with a major campaign swing through the northwest, where he hopes to put the sometimes swinging states of Oregon and Washington in play by presenting himself as John McCain: Eco-Warrior.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee swept into Portlandon Monday to deliver a major address outlining his plan to "re-establish America's environmental leadership in the world." Here's a hint about how he'll do it: The McCain campaign says the candidates wants to "mobilize market forces."

That may sound good, but as Gene Karpinski, the president of the bipartisan League of Conservation Voters, says, "To his credit, Senator McCain wants to do something serious about global warming, but his proposal falls far short of what the science says we need to do today. He has not substantively improved his plan over the bill he introduced years ago -- legislation that the science now shows is out of date."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

John McCain: Eco-Warrior
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 13, 2008 at 8:19 AM.

Yikes, it's really true. John McCain is running for president as a tree-hugging liberal.

No, not an all-the-time environmentalist -- rather, as a swing-state-savvy, targeted-message-peddling, hoping-to-pick-up- the-votes-of-lifestyle-liberals-who-want-to-address-climate- change-on-the-cheap murky-shade-of-green Republican.

So, today, in the battleground state of Oregon, where a reverence for the outdoors requires that Republican contenders greenwash their appeals, McCain's campaign will begin airing a new television commercial that essentially says: "Look, I'm not like George Bush and Dick Cheney. I don't live in la-la land when it comes to global warming. I actually believe in something I like to call 'science.'"

The senator -- who broke a little bit with Bush and Cheney on environmental issues, but who never really lined up with the serious Republican environmentalists who were isolated by the administration and burn-the-planet GOP leaders like Tom DeLay -- is reinforcing the message with a major campaign swing through the northwest, where he hopes to put the sometimes swinging states of Oregon and Washington in play by presenting himself as John McCain: Eco-Warrior.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee swept into Portlandon Monday to deliver a major address outlining his plan to "re-establish America's environmental leadership in the world." Here's a hint about how he'll do it: The McCain campaign says the candidates wants to "mobilize market forces."

That may sound good, but as Gene Karpinski, the president of the bipartisan League of Conservation Voters, says, "To his credit, Senator McCain wants to do something serious about global warming, but his proposal falls far short of what the science says we need to do today. He has not substantively improved his plan over the bill he introduced years ago -- legislation that the science now shows is out of date."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Pentagon Drops Charges Against "20th Hijacker"
Posted by Attaturk , Firedoglake on May 13, 2008 at 6:54 AM.

Heckuva job on not following the 'quaint' Geneva Convention against Torture:

The Pentagon has dropped charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was alleged to have been the so-called "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks, his U.S. military defense lawyer said Monday.

Mohammed al-Qahtani was one of six men charged by the military in February with murder and war crimes for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks. Authorities say al-Qahtani missed out on taking part in the attacks because he was denied entry to the U.S. by an immigration agent.

But in reviewing the case, the convening authority for military commissions, Susan Crawford, decided to dismiss the charges against al-Qahtani and proceed with the arraignment for the other five, said Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, the Saudi's military lawyer.

And just why did they dismiss the charges now?

The attorney said he could not comment on the reasons for the dismissal until discussing the case with lawyers for the other five defendants. Officials previously said al-Qahtani had been subjected to a harsh interrogation authorized by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

I feel a chorus of 'Proud to be an American' coming on. Excuse me while I take my anti-treacle medication.

The charges were dismissed without prejudice -- but not the torture of course -- so they could be refiled at a later time.

But why this is occurring may be considered in context with what is happening with the other five individuals:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Biofuel is Still a Stupid Idea
Posted by Manila Ryce, The Largest Minority on May 13, 2008 at 5:52 AM.

It’s fairly common knowledge by now that ethanol increases global warming, is worse to your health than gasoline, and inflates food prices, but what about second generation ethanol that uses cellulose rather than the edible portion of food crops?

On the surface, it may seem resourceful to convert that corn cob into energy, but our hunger for fuel goes far beyond what inedible food scraps can provide. In fact, second generation ethanol is perhaps even more dangerous than first generation ethanol under the simple understanding that if all plant matter is a potential fuel then all forests are potential gold mines for the fuel industry.

US incentives for ethanol production have already contributed to massive deforestation in places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Amazon, where rainforests are being cleared to grow biofuel crops. Cellulose ethanol would further promote this destruction by using the forest itself for fuel.

Americans love the idea that they won’t need to sacrifice. There is no incentive to curb your consumption if science will save you by replacing that fuel in your inefficient internal combustion engine with another. Turning CO2-absorbing trees into gasoline is not progress. It’s just as insane as burning food to run a car. The only clean energies have always been wind, solar, and water. Eyes back on the prize folks. The goal should be to get off of all fuels entirely.

Biofuel is Still a Stupid Idea
Posted by Manila Ryce, The Largest Minority on May 13, 2008 at 5:52 AM.

It’s fairly common knowledge by now that ethanol increases global warming, is worse to your health than gasoline, and inflates food prices, but what about second generation ethanol that uses cellulose rather than the edible portion of food crops?

On the surface, it may seem resourceful to convert that corn cob into energy, but our hunger for fuel goes far beyond what inedible food scraps can provide. In fact, second generation ethanol is perhaps even more dangerous than first generation ethanol under the simple understanding that if all plant matter is a potential fuel then all forests are potential gold mines for the fuel industry.

US incentives for ethanol production have already contributed to massive deforestation in places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Amazon, where rainforests are being cleared to grow biofuel crops. Cellulose ethanol would further promote this destruction by using the forest itself for fuel.

Americans love the idea that they won’t need to sacrifice. There is no incentive to curb your consumption if science will save you by replacing that fuel in your inefficient internal combustion engine with another. Turning CO2-absorbing trees into gasoline is not progress. It’s just as insane as burning food to run a car. The only clean energies have always been wind, solar, and water. Eyes back on the prize folks. The goal should be to get off of all fuels entirely.

More Spying, Fewer Results
Posted by Mustang Bobby, Shakesville on May 13, 2008 at 4:46 AM.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, spying is up in the United States. But what have we got to show for it? Not much.

The number of Americans being secretly wiretapped or having their financial and other records reviewed by the government has continued to increase as officials aggressively use powers approved after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the number of terrorism prosecutions ending up in court -- one measure of the effectiveness of such sleuthing -- has continued to decline, in some cases precipitously.

The trends, visible in new government data and a private analysis of Justice Department records, are worrisome to civil liberties groups and some legal scholars. They say it is further evidence that the government has compromised the privacy rights of ordinary citizens without much to show for it.

Not to worry, says the Bush administration. Just because we've got nothing to show for it doesn't mean that spies -- real or imagined -- aren't being caught and aren't being dealt with.

Law enforcement officials say the additional surveillance powers have been critically important in ways the public does not always see. Threats can be mitigated, they say, by deporting suspicious people or letting them know that authorities are watching them.

"The fact that the prosecutions are down doesn't mean that the utility of these investigations is down. It suggests that these investigations may be leading to other forms of prevention and protection," said Thomas Newcomb, a former Bush White House national security aide. He said there were half a dozen actions outside of the criminal courts that the government could take to snuff out potential threats, including using diplomatic or military channels.

[...]

The emphasis on spy programs also is starting to give pause to some members of Congress who fear the government is investing too much in anti-terrorism programs at the expense of traditional crime-fighting. Other lawmakers are raising questions about how well the FBI is performing its counter-terrorism mission.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

More Spying, Fewer Results
Posted by Mustang Bobby, Shakesville on May 13, 2008 at 4:46 AM.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, spying is up in the United States. But what have we got to show for it? Not much.

The number of Americans being secretly wiretapped or having their financial and other records reviewed by the government has continued to increase as officials aggressively use powers approved after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the number of terrorism prosecutions ending up in court -- one measure of the effectiveness of such sleuthing -- has continued to decline, in some cases precipitously.

The trends, visible in new government data and a private analysis of Justice Department records, are worrisome to civil liberties groups and some legal scholars. They say it is further evidence that the government has compromised the privacy rights of ordinary citizens without much to show for it.

Not to worry, says the Bush administration. Just because we've got nothing to show for it doesn't mean that spies -- real or imagined -- aren't being caught and aren't being dealt with.

Law enforcement officials say the additional surveillance powers have been critically important in ways the public does not always see. Threats can be mitigated, they say, by deporting suspicious people or letting them know that authorities are watching them.

"The fact that the prosecutions are down doesn't mean that the utility of these investigations is down. It suggests that these investigations may be leading to other forms of prevention and protection," said Thomas Newcomb, a former Bush White House national security aide. He said there were half a dozen actions outside of the criminal courts that the government could take to snuff out potential threats, including using diplomatic or military channels.

[...]

The emphasis on spy programs also is starting to give pause to some members of Congress who fear the government is investing too much in anti-terrorism programs at the expense of traditional crime-fighting. Other lawmakers are raising questions about how well the FBI is performing its counter-terrorism mission.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Republican Revolt
Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend on May 13, 2008 at 3:40 AM.

Bob Barr has jumped into the race as a Libertarian candidate. Will this siphon off some of the disaffected Republicans voters who cannot stand McSame, or is this just a blip.

Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr launched a Libertarian Party presidential bid Monday, saying voters are hungry for an alternative to the status quo who would dramatically cut the federal government.

His candidacy throws a wild card into the White House race that many believe could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy.

...Barr first must win the Libertarian nomination at the party's national convention that begins May 22. Party officials consider him a front-runner thanks to the national profile he developed as a Georgia congressman from 1995 to 2003.

Barr, 59, quit the Republican Party two years ago, saying he had grown disillusioned with its failure to shrink government and its willingness to scale back civil liberties in fighting terrorism.

The Freepi are alternately seeing this as a good thing or a disaster spoiler situation.

And look at this fun -- McCain is going to have a pain in the posterior as Ron Paul's revolutionaries are plotting a "convention revolt." The GOP convention may be more interesting than expected.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Republican Revolt
Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend on May 13, 2008 at 3:40 AM.

Bob Barr has jumped into the race as a Libertarian candidate. Will this siphon off some of the disaffected Republicans voters who cannot stand McSame, or is this just a blip.

Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr launched a Libertarian Party presidential bid Monday, saying voters are hungry for an alternative to the status quo who would dramatically cut the federal government.

His candidacy throws a wild card into the White House race that many believe could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy.

...Barr first must win the Libertarian nomination at the party's national convention that begins May 22. Party officials consider him a front-runner thanks to the national profile he developed as a Georgia congressman from 1995 to 2003.

Barr, 59, quit the Republican Party two years ago, saying he had grown disillusioned with its failure to shrink government and its willingness to scale back civil liberties in fighting terrorism.

The Freepi are alternately seeing this as a good thing or a disaster spoiler situation.

And look at this fun -- McCain is going to have a pain in the posterior as Ron Paul's revolutionaries are plotting a "convention revolt." The GOP convention may be more interesting than expected.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Religious Right Celebrates End of Interracial Marriage Ban
Posted by Evan Derkacz, Huffington Post on May 12, 2008 at 5:38 PM.

Tony Perkins' Family Research Council may be the brightest star in the Christian Right constellation, with deep ties to the unholy trinity of the Republican party, James Dobson's Focus on the Family and even Blackwater USA--the military contractor whose malfeasance is fast becoming the stuff of legend.

Their email alerts, which I receive daily, can be distressingly cloying, deploying middle-age dad puns and witticisms worthy of the uniquely middle-american craft of crochet-art. Recent subject headings read: "Ligers, Tigons, and Zonkeys, Oh My!" (warning against the dangers of genetic engineering) and "Meet the Robinsons" (warning against the dangers of certain high-ranking, gay Episcopalians getting married).

And, despite connections to white supremacist groups documented by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Nation's Max Blumenthal, the FRC throws in the occasional right wing black preacher like Bishop Harry Jackson, nods to a self-serving slice of the Dr. King legacy and, this past week, a tribute to the Rosa Parks of miscegenation, Mildred Loving, who died on May 2nd. (Note: the white supremacist connections don't end there by a long shot. One could--and one still may--devote a whole post or series of posts to these connections...)

The FRC devotes a significant portion of its tribute to Loving to caution readers: "Although homosexual activists are fond of portraying the Lovings' victory as a precedent for their cause, the Loving case didn't alter the definition of marriage but affirmed it by allowing any man to marry any woman. The nation is indebted to Mildred for a legacy that so aptly lives up to the couple's shared name."

There are at least two critical things to keep in mind while reading this. First, the embarrassing, then the meat. It's not just "homosexual activists" who see parallels in the Loving case--it's Mildred herself. On June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of the Loving case (a decision handed down just months before MLK was killed in Memphis, by the by), Mildred penned a public statement that included these liberal sentiments (full PDF here; italics mine):

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is Water Part of the Tibet/China Conflict?
Posted by Michael E. Campana, WaterWired on May 12, 2008 at 4:24 PM.

The Tibetan Plateau, source to great rivers (Brahmaputra, Ganges, Yellow, Yangtze, Indus, Irrawaddy, Mekong) in whose basins live well over 2 billion people, may be at the heart of the China-Tibet "debate."

Why? Water, that's why.

The region, at 2.5 million square kilometers about four times the size of Texas, covers almost 2% of the Earth's land surface. It is the world's biggest plateau, and has an average elevation of almost 15,000 feet (4500 meters). It plays a significant role in the climate of the planet. Its glaciers nourish the aforementioned rivers and others. And it is those glaciers that may be at the heart of China's "interest" in keeping Tibet on a tight leash.

Circle of Blue has an excellent about the strategic power of water in the China-Tibet debate (thanks to Eric Daigh).

Like many other resources, water is of great concern to China. I've previously posted on China's water issues: Three Gorges Dam; the Great South-to-North water transfer; Lake Balkhash.

The take-away: what with Tibtean Plateau glaciers shrinking because of climate change and China's water development plans, the Indians, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Bangladeshis, Burmese, et al. might have cause for concern.

And perhaps the rest of us, too.

"In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, there is nothing that can surpass it." -- Lao-tze, 6th century BCE

Lieberman: Hamas Endorsement Shows Difference With McCain
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on May 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM.

Shortly after promising not to engage in these kinds of attacks, John McCain went after Barack Obama a few weeks ago over an ostensible "endorsement" from a Hamas spokesperson. It was a cheap and ridiculous move -- especially given the fact that McCain and Obama have the same position on Hamas -- which Time's Joe Klein accurately described as "gutter crap."

It was therefore not surprising at all to see Joe Lieberman repeat and legitimize the bogus line yesterday on CNN.

Lieberman began by complaining about Obama's "lost his bearings" comment, insisting, "[T]o say he lost his bearings suggests something more fundamental and personal." (It really wasn't.)

But when Wolf Blitzer noted that McCain and Obama have the same position, Lieberman conceded that this was true and acknowledged that Obama “clearly doesn’t support any of the values and goals of Hamas.”

But then he had to add: “But the fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, ‘Why?’ And it suggests the difference between these two candidates.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Lieberman: Hamas Endorsement Shows Difference With McCain
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on May 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM.

Shortly after promising not to engage in these kinds of attacks, John McCain went after Barack Obama a few weeks ago over an ostensible "endorsement" from a Hamas spokesperson. It was a cheap and ridiculous move -- especially given the fact that McCain and Obama have the same position on Hamas -- which Time's Joe Klein accurately described as "gutter crap."

It was therefore not surprising at all to see Joe Lieberman re