'Tis the Season for Eco-bashing

"The month of rolling blackouts was totally worth it"

Okay, so the holiday season is not typically the most environmentally-conscious of seasons. In fact, it's probably one of the toughest few weeks of the year for the environment, with all the holiday travel, increased heating costs, forests worth of discarded wrapping paper, and let's not forget all the lights! Reason would suggest that a time of such great environmental strain would be an opportune time to help the environmental cause.

Unfortunately, many on the Right like to savor this time of year, hoping that those "crazy whack job environmentalists" will take a much-needed vacation from their cause. They employ the "Is Nothing Sacred?" argument to mask their true intention, pandering to big business at the expense of the environment.

Michelle Malkin recently went on the attack following what she perceived to be a heretical act by the mayor of Seattle to instill a little environmental awareness into a holiday tradition. Mayor Greg Nickels got the Right into an uproar with his "Letter To Santa", an effort to use Santa's Christmas rounds as a reminder to children that global warming is having an observed effect on the North Pole. The letter also launched the mayor's campaign to give out energy efficient light bulbs this holiday season, and announced the use of efficient LED Christmas lights for the city's holiday tree.

Malkin was not alone in piling on the mayor. Conservative blogs leaningstraightup.com, The American Pundit, crushliberalism.com, rightvoices.com and brutallyhonest.org all voiced their displeasure with Mayor Nickels' environmental message. Malkin herself later shed a tear for the eventual phasing out of the incandescent light bulb, a mandate of the new energy bill signed by President Bush in December.

If you're anything like me, you're probably asking yourself, "So what's all the uproar about?" Unfortunately, reading these blog posts does virtually nothing to answer that question. Rather than putting up any real argument as to why we shouldn't be environmental aware at Christmas time, these blog authors instead relied on the following tactics:

1. The aforementioned "Is Nothing Sacred?" argument. This states that because Christmas is -or at least was intended to be - a religious holiday, that any discussion of environmental issues is tantamount to sacrilege. Now I would be offended by, say, Christ-centered pornography, if that even exists. One could reasonably use the "Is Nothing Sacred?" argument in that case. But with the Seattle mayor, we're not talking about Jesus, we are talking about the secular, mythical tale of Santa Claus and his reindeer. And we're talking about energy efficient light bulbs, not anything illegal, immoral or even slightly unpleasant. Not exactly a crucifix in a glass of urine. For example:

"Can’t Christmas be Christmas without Al Gore wannabes polluting the air and scaring the kids?" - Malkin

"Now they’ve crossed the line. Dragging Santa in the Global Warming debate has gone too far!" - rightvoices.com

2. The Idiotic Knee-jerk Reaction. Right-wingers have some nerve ending in the brain that fires whenever the words "environment" or "global warming" are uttered, sending these impulses to the thalamus resulting in a heightened state of arousal, sometimes referred to as a "fight or flight" response. (Wow, I did remember something from college) This results in the righty reacting without understanding what is really going on, often embellishing on the original story or fabricating one of their own. Like the human knee-jerk reflex, there isn't really any conscious thought going on here either. A few of the right-wing headlines for this story:

"Seattle mayor: Santa hates kids who aren’t eco-kooks like me." - crushliberalism.com

"Seattle Mayor: Use Eco-Friendly Lightbulbs or Santa Will Die" - The American Pundit

"Seattle Mayor Nickels to kids: Stop Global Warming, OR SANTA WILL DIE!!!!" - Leaningstrightup.com

Okay folks, let's not get carried away here. There is no environmental fear-mongering going on. Nickels says nothing about Santa or his reindeer dying, nor does he claim that Santa hates any kids. Real fear-mongering (the kind mastered by conservatives) involves warning of the demise of real people over a fictitious threat (see George Bush, mushroom cloud). What the mayor of Seattle did was the exact opposite. He warned of the demise of fake people (Santa, et al) over a real threat (global warming).

3. The "Closed Loop" method. This is when far-right conservatives exclusively use other far-right conservatives as backup for their arguments. You have to give it to this group, though. At least they attempted to make an argument.

- In slamming the new energy bill, Michelle Malkin based her position solely on the Business and Media Institute's assessment of the bill. The Business and Media Institute is a right-wing watchdog group dedicated to promoting conservative, free-market economic theory in the media.

- For their part, Leaning Straight Up used multiple far right sources to slam energy-efficient light bulbs, linking to both Capitalism Magazine and the Washington Policy Center, the self-proclaimed purveyor of "high quality analysis on issues relating to the free market and government regulation."

Because nothing says "sound argument" quite like exclusively citing unabashedly right-wing organizations. A less-overtly partisan source usually makes for a better argument. For example the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the EPA, would all provide a more well-rounded summation of environmental issues than the energy-funded organizations conservatives exclusively tap for their environmental [mis]information.

Election '08: The Huckabee Factor

Recent 2008 presidential polls have former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee coming out of nowhere to lead in Iowa and pull virtually neck and neck with the Republican front runners in national surveys. Clearly, the religious right was not pleased with the choice of candidates, and has thrown support in the corner of an evangelical ally, which has many within the Republican Party scrambling to smear him.

Why attack one of their own, you say? Huckabee represents a break from the traditional GOP way of doing things: He is a actually a true social conservative. Where Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. only pandered to social conservatives to get elected, Huckabee appears committed to the "Christian" conservative cause.

This is troubling to the GOP for several reasons. Huckabee stands to split Republican voters into two factions. On one hand, you have the social conservatives (SC's), and on the other, the fiscal conservatives (FC's), classical conservatives or Goldwater conservatives. Until now, the two factions (while having virtually nothing in common) were able to coexist under a single GOP banner. This was largely due to the SC's distancing themselves from the Democratic party over issues like abortion, civil rights and gay marriage, and from a concerted effort by the FC's in power to give the SC's just enough "faith-based" government to keep them happy.

But now, in walks Mike Huckabee, who is without a doubt a true blue Christian Conservative. If George W. Bush and Karl Rove could have the SC's convinced they're good Christians, Mike Huckabee may have them believing he's the Second Coming. Huckabee is an ordained minister. He is against civil unions, abortion and gun-control. He doesn't believe in evolution. He believes that homosexuality is sinful, and he has credited God for his recent jump in the polls.

It is not difficult to grasp the implications of Huckabee's meteoric rise. Social Conservatives, Christian Conservatives, Evangelicals, or whatever you want to call them may not be able to recognize if a Republican is or is not a Christian, but they sure as hell can tell who is more Christian. Among the pro-choice, cross-dressing adulterer, the cult follower, the Hollywood actor, and the Baptist Minister, I think the SC's can find their guy. And if you consider John McCain to still be in the running, remember that he lost the 2000 primary largely due to his reluctance to pander to the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world.

So what we have is a candidate in Huckabee who may actually be too socially conservative for the FC's. While Huckabee is busy locking up the "I-ain't-come-from-no-monkey!" vote, the "Lower-my-taxes-and-screw-the-middle-class" voter may start to look outside the Republican Party. This is where a moderate candidate like Hillary Clinton gets a boost, as she is clearly the more fiscally conservative of the Democratic candidates. For example, Hillary supports not a single-payer universal health care plan, but a health insurance mandate, much like automobile insurance is required for all drivers. While the government would assist in helping people adhere to the mandate, Americans would now have more of their tax dollars devoted to pure profit for insurance companies. But I digress...

Huckabee's ascent to the top of the polls has started to alarm the FC's, and the FC's are starting to fight back. Presumably worried that Huckabee is not as fiscally conservative as a Republican should be, conservatives are fiercely trying to stave off Huckabee's rise.

Rush Limbaugh claimed that Huckabee is essentially a Democratic plant designed to ensure the Democratic nominee has a beatable candidate to compete against in the general election:

"Why are the Drive-Bys, why are they pushing Huckabee? Because they think that Huckabee is a nut. They think that Huckabee is a Bible-thumping preacher that's going to be marching into every woman's home and telling her, "No, you must not and cannot have an abortion." And then they think he's going to hijack the Constitution and write Roe vs. Wade out of it without even going to the Supreme Court. And then they think he's going to make every liberal kid go to Sunday school. This is what they think of him. This is what they think of any God-fearing pastor or conservative religious person. And, as such, they think that would be easy to beat."

While this isn't necessarily an "attack" on Huckabee, it's an ominous warning to Republicans that Huckabee will be like pigs to the slaughter if he wins the GOP nomination. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

This week, a "prominent, DC-based Huckabee ally" had this to say about why Rush didn't support his candidate:

"Honestly, because Rush doesn’t think for himself. That’s not necessarily a slap because he’s not paid to be a thinker—he’s an entertainer. I can’t remember the last time that he has veered from the talking points from the DC/Manhattan chattering class. If they were praising Huckabee, he would be too."

Of course, truer words were never spoken, but that didn't prevent conservative water-carriers from slamming the Huckabee camp:

Michelle Malkin: "What an unbelievably knuckle-headed move by Huckabee’s minions....I believe this Rush-bashing incident may turn out to be Huckabee’s Howard Dean scream moment."

And in a bizarre twist, conservative author Ann Coulter slammed Huckabee in her blog, despite sharing his disdain for evolution, saying, "Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led."

And in a truly strange episode, Glenn Beck attacked Huckabee for, of all things, claiming that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. Huckabee, the Southern Baptist made the comment to call into question the faith of fellow candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Beck, also a Mormon, responded by calling Huckabee a "one-eyed Mullah," in an apparent reference to Islamic jihad. If all this religion has your head spinning right now, you're not alone.

I don't know what is more entertaining: watching Social Conservatives have it out with Fiscal Conservatives, or watching the Republican nomination being decided over whose religious beliefs are less crackpot.

Of course, this is all good news for the Democrats. Huckabee is attacking the policies of George W. Bush, and neo-cons are fighting back, warning the nation of the next coming of Jimmy Carter. Now all the Democrats have to do is sit back and watch the GOP break apart from the inside and 2008 will be a rout.

Sorry Guys, Iran Has No Nukes

The recent NIE report confirming Iran's dormant nuclear weapons program has done more than just expose the Bush administration as disengenuous fear-mongers; it has created a "vacuum," as Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank so eloquently put it on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews. It had created an issues vacuum, which the GOP candidates must scramble to fill with gay marriage bans, flag burning amendments, and the like. Iran was always the ace in the hole for these candidates, and now the NEI has taken that from them.

On the December 4th broadcast of Hardball, Milbank summed up the GOP's 2008 election strategy:

The playbook sort of seems to be about 2002, pushing measures through congress, whether it was the authorization for war, basically creating something of a drumbeat, putting pressure on the Democrats to be strong on national security. This [NIE report] makes it very, very difficult to go back to that same playbook.

The leading Republican candidates have been eerily silent on Iran since this report was made public this week. Unfortunately, they are already on the record with regard to the Iranian nuclear threat. Since the United Nations had already determined that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, the NIE report is nothing new. All it does it put a final nail in the coffin of the GOP's 2008 Iran strategy. Now that Iran is clearly not going nuclear any time soon, that drumbeat will soon fall upon deaf ears. This solidifies Iraq, not Iran, as the dominant national security/foreign policy issue in the next election, and that is not good news for the Republican candidates.

Here are a few of the ways these guys have already been using the non-existent Iran situation to build a 2008 election platform:

"If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us." - Mitt Romney, 10/07

"... the military option is not off the table and the Iranians should understand that, that America will not allow them to become a nuclear power.... Their regime is too irresponsible. The world would be in too much danger" - Rudy Giuliani, 10/07

“The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran’s military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure.” - Rudy Giuliani, 8/07

"I know that our liberal friends shake their head when a conservative talks of a nuclear Iran.... But for conservatives like me, facing reality is not a source of fear. It is a source of confidence." - Mitt Romney, 6/06

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." - John McCain, 4/07, to the tune of The Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann"

Bush: Hot is Cold, Up is Down

We all know George W. Bush has said some idiotic things during his presidency:

"They misunderestimated me."

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

"I think we agree, the past is over."

Ok, so this is not going to be a post poking fun at Bush's War on English (although that can be fun). These quotations are innocently stupid. Yet there is a whole other class of perplexing Bushisms that really cut to the core of what an insincere and evil tyrant the man really is. They paint Bush as either completely out of touch with reality, or a sadistically compulsive liar. The following quotations are not as much funny as they are disturbing:

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."

"Heck of a job, Brownie."

"Bring 'em on."

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

(to hear many of these Bushisms, go here)

This week, Bush continued to lose his grip on reality after a National Intelligence Estimate (NEI) confirmed an international intelligence finding that Iran, next in line to be pre-emptively attacked by the U.S., had shut down it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. (story here) The Bush administration has relied heavily on Iran's supposedly active nuclear weapons program to fuel public support for war on Iran:

"Apart from few very sophisticated uses for uranium metal by the most advanced nuclear programs in the world, the only real use for uranium metal is a nuclear weapon." - John Bolton, United States ambassador to the UN

"We've made our choice. We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, but there must be consequences for Iran's defiance and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." - President Bush

"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." - President Bush

Before we delve into the latest NEI finding regarding Iran, here are a few items of note:

1. The UN has never believed Iran had an active nuclear weapons program. The US report is consistent with what the international community and Iran have been saying for years.

2. Iran has never directly threatened the United States.

So it would appear that the pre-existing notion (or near-certainty in Bush's mind) that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is pretty flimsy to begin with, and the further conclusion the Bush administration is hoping we all come to, that Iran is planning a nuclear attack on US soil is completely without merit. The NEI report further erodes this idea, putting a serious dent in the Bush administration's effort to start a new war before his term expires.

So what did Bush have to say in response to the "Good" news that Iran's nuclear weapons program was dormant? Well, as any great warmonger would do, Bush went right back on the offensive. While your average radical, peace-obsessed hippie might see this news as a sign that another large-scale war in the Middle East is not necessary, our fearless leader remained ever vigilant. In another break with reality, Bush actually used the news of Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program as a launching pad for more saber-rattling. He called the news a "warning signal," and in grand fear-mongering fashion, resorted to outrageous denials and ominous hypotheticals.

"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program," Bush suggested. "I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world."

So once again, we have seen the President make ludicrous and contradictory statements for the purpose of advancing his agenda. This time, the agenda is war. In the above examples, the agendas Bush was driving were slightly less destructive. The mother working three jobs ("The economy is just fine") or the gushing endorsement of Brownie ("My government appointees are neither corrupt nor incompetent") are sinister enough. But when Bush starts lying to lay the groundwork for another war, Americans should be alarmed, especially in light of the fact that the very same tactic of targeting a boogieman (Saddam/Ahmadinejad), cooking up intelligence and exaggerating a threat worked on Congress and the American people in 2003.

Frighteningly enough, to this point, the President's Iran PR campaign has worked. According to an October 2007 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 77% of Americans believed that the government of Iran is attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons. Hmmm...Where have I seen numbers like this before? Oh yes, the Iraq War! After an intense and dishonest propaganda campaign aimed at conflating Iraq and 9/11, approval of the Iraq situation peaked at 75% in April, 2003 polling. That percentage has since dropped to the 30% range, as, you guessed it, doubts about both the necessity of the war and the ability to succeed have swayed public opinion 180 degrees.