Today the EPA released its recommendations for changes to the Clean Air Act, which it is legally mandated to do every five years. A significant change not endorsed by the current head of the EPA, Stephen L Johnson, was a reduction in soot levels emitted by the usual suspects like vehicles, big factories, and power plants. Surprising to no one, I'm sure - this is Bush's EPA, after all - but here are a few tidbits for you to remember if you're lucky enough to deliver the good news to someone you know.
1.) Stephen L Johnson isn't a particularly sinister figure in the history of the EPA, but he was apparently a backer of some seriously fucked up studies. One was Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, or CHEER (most ironic name ever), which apparently paid parents who used pesticides and had infants to continue to use pesticides. The program studied the effects of pesticides on children and on its face it probably brought back results, but paying people to keep using poisons around their babies instead of saying "STOP FUCKING DOING THAT" is slightly unethical in my book. SLJ was forced to cancel the program due to confirmation hearing politics, and was also forced to discontinue planning for a similar program that paid parents to continue to beat their children with axe handles. Now we'll never know what effects axe handle beatings have on children.
2.) The recommendations were made in spite of voiced alarm from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council, the AMA, and the EPA staff studying the soot regulations. In other words, no one with credentials agrees with the recommendation to ignore soot. I'm not sure why the EPA even bothers putting together recommendations, other than to spend what's left of its shrinking budget and look busy.
3.) The power industry made its usual noises about their disappointment with the recommendation that went through (this impacts particle levels on a different scale), prompting some papers to say that the EPA ruling pleased no one. In the Times article we even get some lip from Edison Electric Institute, braying about the EPA and its darned persistence into attempting to improve air quality standards. This is the usual bullshit you can expect to hear from an organization that lobbied heavily for the Clear Skies Act. There was no compromise here, just the EPA whoring itself out to the power industry at the expense of thousands of lives a year.
In the end we're still left with inadequate air regulations, playing out the same story year after year. The poor will continue to be disproportionately impacted by coal fallout, and the EPA will continue its campaign of misdirection while selling out our nation's environment to corporate interests. Whore on.
22 September, 2006
Dems v Chavez
If only he hadn't said 'devil'.
I have to admit, it was kind of a stupid thing to say, mainly because I don't believe in angels and devils, but it's easy to see why Chavez would call Bush the devil. After all, the Bush Administration has been trying to paint Chavez as some kind of dictator, terrorist sympathizer, enemy of democracy and so on for some time. Oh, and they have also been involved in trying to overthrow Chavez, even supporting a failed coup attempt a couple of years ago. So cut Hugo some slack for the hyperbolic use of the word 'devil'. He's got damn good reason for thinking that.
Even though I think calling Bush the 'devil' was dumb, what's much dumber to me is the response from prominent Democrats. Charlie Rangel got all huffy about Chavez coming into 'his' district and criticizing 'his' commander in chief. First of all, Mr. Rangel should be reminded that the 1st Amendment, not yet repealed, applies to everyone standing on American soil. It's one thing to express contempt for someone's opinion, but it's another to suggest that an offensive opinion should remain unexpressed. That's the Bushies' job, Charlie -- not one that any Democratic should or has any need to step in and fill. Secondly, I have to say it's a sad shame that Democrats like Rangel don't seem to have the cajones to speak truth to power like Chavez regularly does. Read Chavez' entire speech. He didn't stand there and spew Bush-hating bile the whole time, and all the media focus on the word 'devil' is an injustice. He made criticisms of current American foreign policy that Democrats have made (albeit flaccidly) in the past, but he also communicated a message of hope that working together, oppressed people of the world can and will throw off the shackles of multinational corporate domination and forge a more just, more peaceful future. This is the same message that Democrats should be taking to voters as the mid-term elections approach, and it's the same message they've run away from time and again, guaranteeing a continuation and aggravation of voter cynicism. Oppressed people are not limited to third world countries, nor is corporate domination limited to off-shore drilling. The people of the United States have much more in common with the people of Venezuela than they have with your typical Republican campaign donor. Take another look at Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke" and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Speaking of Katrina, Chavez, among others, offered his assistance in the aftermath of that horrible disaster, but he was rebuked. Apparently Bush felt that he could fuck that mess up just fine on his own, thank you very much.
A "thug" my ass. Chavez should be Nancy Pelosi's role model!
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, and it would behoove the US leadership to make nice with Chavez rather than demonize him. Venezuela could be a powerful ally in the struggle for peace and justice. It's a shame those are not goals of the Bush Administration, but an even bigger shame that they don't appear to be goals of the Democratic leadership, either. If they were, then perhaps they would use their air time to draw our attention to the rest of Chavez' speech, and not just the 'devil' part. Or discuss in a public forum some of the economic reforms that Chavez has been enacting for the last few years. There are all kinds of ways that Democrats could have redirected the discussion to their advantage by discussing the myriad of ways that Hugo is right about a great many things, but they didn't, and the best explanation -- maybe the only explanation -- that I can come up with is the fact that because Chavez decided early on that Venezuelan oil should benefit Venezuelans, the oil companies HATE his little brown mixed-race guts, and since it is primarily the oil industry that runs our government and rules our economy, you won't see any pissant Democrats raising some of Chavez' issues in public any time soon. Which is a damn shame, because Chavez' issues are our issues.
Read the complete Greg Palast interview cited above with Chavez here.
I have to admit, it was kind of a stupid thing to say, mainly because I don't believe in angels and devils, but it's easy to see why Chavez would call Bush the devil. After all, the Bush Administration has been trying to paint Chavez as some kind of dictator, terrorist sympathizer, enemy of democracy and so on for some time. Oh, and they have also been involved in trying to overthrow Chavez, even supporting a failed coup attempt a couple of years ago. So cut Hugo some slack for the hyperbolic use of the word 'devil'. He's got damn good reason for thinking that.
Even though I think calling Bush the 'devil' was dumb, what's much dumber to me is the response from prominent Democrats. Charlie Rangel got all huffy about Chavez coming into 'his' district and criticizing 'his' commander in chief. First of all, Mr. Rangel should be reminded that the 1st Amendment, not yet repealed, applies to everyone standing on American soil. It's one thing to express contempt for someone's opinion, but it's another to suggest that an offensive opinion should remain unexpressed. That's the Bushies' job, Charlie -- not one that any Democratic should or has any need to step in and fill. Secondly, I have to say it's a sad shame that Democrats like Rangel don't seem to have the cajones to speak truth to power like Chavez regularly does. Read Chavez' entire speech. He didn't stand there and spew Bush-hating bile the whole time, and all the media focus on the word 'devil' is an injustice. He made criticisms of current American foreign policy that Democrats have made (albeit flaccidly) in the past, but he also communicated a message of hope that working together, oppressed people of the world can and will throw off the shackles of multinational corporate domination and forge a more just, more peaceful future. This is the same message that Democrats should be taking to voters as the mid-term elections approach, and it's the same message they've run away from time and again, guaranteeing a continuation and aggravation of voter cynicism. Oppressed people are not limited to third world countries, nor is corporate domination limited to off-shore drilling. The people of the United States have much more in common with the people of Venezuela than they have with your typical Republican campaign donor. Take another look at Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke" and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Speaking of Katrina, Chavez, among others, offered his assistance in the aftermath of that horrible disaster, but he was rebuked. Apparently Bush felt that he could fuck that mess up just fine on his own, thank you very much.
Q: Why did George Bush turn down your help for New Orleans after the hurricane?This is the man Nancy Pelosi called a "thug". This is the guy the House majority leader called a "power-hungry autocrat". Chavez was twice elected by the people of Venezuela, and has been tirelessly doing what he can to help educate, feed, and employ the poor of his own country and those of his neighbors. The guy is helping poor Americans by selling heating oil to them at a discount, which is economically the polar opposite of Bush's domestic policies.
Chavez: You should ask him, but from the very beginning of the terrible disaster of Katrina, our people in the U.S., like the president of CITGO, went to New Orleans to rescue people. We were in close contact by phone with Jesse Jackson. We hired buses. We got food and water. We tried to protect them; they are our brothers and sisters. Doesn't matter if they are African, Asian, Cuban, whatever.
A "thug" my ass. Chavez should be Nancy Pelosi's role model!
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, and it would behoove the US leadership to make nice with Chavez rather than demonize him. Venezuela could be a powerful ally in the struggle for peace and justice. It's a shame those are not goals of the Bush Administration, but an even bigger shame that they don't appear to be goals of the Democratic leadership, either. If they were, then perhaps they would use their air time to draw our attention to the rest of Chavez' speech, and not just the 'devil' part. Or discuss in a public forum some of the economic reforms that Chavez has been enacting for the last few years. There are all kinds of ways that Democrats could have redirected the discussion to their advantage by discussing the myriad of ways that Hugo is right about a great many things, but they didn't, and the best explanation -- maybe the only explanation -- that I can come up with is the fact that because Chavez decided early on that Venezuelan oil should benefit Venezuelans, the oil companies HATE his little brown mixed-race guts, and since it is primarily the oil industry that runs our government and rules our economy, you won't see any pissant Democrats raising some of Chavez' issues in public any time soon. Which is a damn shame, because Chavez' issues are our issues.
Read the complete Greg Palast interview cited above with Chavez here.
20 September, 2006
Heckuva Job, Spike
I like the fact that the phrase "heckuva job", from Bush's praise of Michael Brown, "you're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie", has begun to enter popular usage, taken to mean, "wow, what a monumental fuck-up, asshole!" However, the title of this post is meant to carry the same meaning that Bush intended when he praised the FEMA director.
I've so far seen only the first two acts of Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts", but even so I can wholeheartedly recommend this stunning piece of work to anyone and everyone who hasn't seen it. I hope it will soon be available for rental for those of you who don't have HBO, the tv worth paying for. But I must add a word of caution: if you have or have had problems with high blood pressure or heart disease, have a pacemaker, or feel that any additional outrage might push you over the edge and make you a potential danger to yourself or others, do not watch this documentary. If you live in a fantasy world where the President is an admirable and capable leader who is serious about national security and directing a responsible, responsive government when confronted with a national disaster, then don't watch "When the Levees Broke" unless you're prepared to confront reality.
Even though there was a lot of media coverage of the Katrina disaster a year ago, seeing it all unfold again through the direct experiences of its survivors packs a powerful whollop to the gut. I had previously been angry and ashamed by the catastrophe, but those reactions until now had largely taken place in my head. Spike Lee's film not only taught me a lot of things about the Katrina debacle that I did not previously know (like a couple of the bigger levees broke as a result of nothing higher than a category 2 hurricane, since the full force of Katrina did not hit New Orleans directly), but is so packed with anguish that even those of us who thought we'd already hit our limit of outrage will really feel it, not just think it.
Every American should see this film. Every citizen should be forced to confront head-on the Bush Administration's depraved indifference to the suffering of their fellow Americans. If you thought it was just furriners they didn't give two shits about, think again. If only BushCo had a couple of dozen big-dollar campaign donors, perhaps the levees would have been fortified years before the storm hit. If only Halliburton had assets in New Orleans that required protection.
If you can get through the first two hours of this documentary, and see near the end of the second hour the shots of President Bush hugging some of the victims for the cameras, and you do not feel like throwing up or kicking the tv, then I'd have to question your humanity or your sanity.
I've so far seen only the first two acts of Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts", but even so I can wholeheartedly recommend this stunning piece of work to anyone and everyone who hasn't seen it. I hope it will soon be available for rental for those of you who don't have HBO, the tv worth paying for. But I must add a word of caution: if you have or have had problems with high blood pressure or heart disease, have a pacemaker, or feel that any additional outrage might push you over the edge and make you a potential danger to yourself or others, do not watch this documentary. If you live in a fantasy world where the President is an admirable and capable leader who is serious about national security and directing a responsible, responsive government when confronted with a national disaster, then don't watch "When the Levees Broke" unless you're prepared to confront reality.
Even though there was a lot of media coverage of the Katrina disaster a year ago, seeing it all unfold again through the direct experiences of its survivors packs a powerful whollop to the gut. I had previously been angry and ashamed by the catastrophe, but those reactions until now had largely taken place in my head. Spike Lee's film not only taught me a lot of things about the Katrina debacle that I did not previously know (like a couple of the bigger levees broke as a result of nothing higher than a category 2 hurricane, since the full force of Katrina did not hit New Orleans directly), but is so packed with anguish that even those of us who thought we'd already hit our limit of outrage will really feel it, not just think it.
Every American should see this film. Every citizen should be forced to confront head-on the Bush Administration's depraved indifference to the suffering of their fellow Americans. If you thought it was just furriners they didn't give two shits about, think again. If only BushCo had a couple of dozen big-dollar campaign donors, perhaps the levees would have been fortified years before the storm hit. If only Halliburton had assets in New Orleans that required protection.
If you can get through the first two hours of this documentary, and see near the end of the second hour the shots of President Bush hugging some of the victims for the cameras, and you do not feel like throwing up or kicking the tv, then I'd have to question your humanity or your sanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
