Sorry Bin Laden. Cap-and-trade is the new public enemy #1.

I always kind of thought this was a bad thing

Okay, so what's with the five month layoff, you ask? It was a number of things, really. The post-election Obama euphoria probably dulled my otherwise keen sense for detecting right-wing nonsense. In addition, the very serious economic predicament in which this nation finds itself diminished, in my opinion, the importance of issues like gay marriage and intelligent design for the time being. You might say I'm waiting for the proverbial dust to settle following Obama's first round of economic stimulus, waiting to see if the Left has any clue how to fix this mess before slamming the Right for getting us into it in the first place.

But also, the Right itself became much less prominent after November, lacking any real leadership or focus of message. There was even some talk on the left of the eminent downfall of the Republican Party itself. I'm not so sure about that, but certainly the party of George W. Bush has been much less prominent since his departure from office in January. Sure an episode of lunacy from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck would pop up periodically, but not to the degree to stir this sleeping giant. Until Now.

Two stories emerged last week that told me conservatives were still up to their old tricks, thus giving me the green light I've been seeking to pick up the blog once again. Those stories (which conservatives insist are connected) were the highly publicized "Tea Parties," bizarre displays of tax-induced angst that lay surprisingly dormant during the entire Bush era of government waste. The second was last week's release of a Department of Homeland Security report on radical right-wing extremist groups and conservatives' collective huff of righteous indignation and hypocrisy that followed.

I started to blog about both events and about the Right's collective effort to claim that the two events are unequivocally linked. Somewhere between Fox News audaciously claiming that liberal groups are more violent than right-wing groups and idiot righties dubbing Barack Obama a fascist, I just lost it. I got so bogged down in right wing craziness that I just couldn't continue. As with any prolonged layoff, like from exercise or substance abuse, I think I needed to work myself back into form gradually. Hence the following piece, which I came across on Think Progress, and I felt was just too good to be ignored.

I would again like to thank Think Progress and also the Washington Independent for bringing another GOP nutjob to my attention.

John Shimkus is a U.S. House of Representatives member from Illinois. Shimkus has been a global warming skeptic and opponent of greenhouse emissions regulation for some time. Today during a debate on a proposed "cap-and-trade" legislation, Shimkus made the following appeal:

I think this is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I've ever experienced. I've lived through some tough times in Congress - impeachment, two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above activities that have happened.

Really? Worse than 9/11?

"Cap-and-trade" is a pollution regulation policy that puts limits on the amount of pollutants that can be emitted. Companies or other groups who exceed their allowance may purchase (trade) with others to fulfill their needs, so as the total amount of emission allowed in the particular body (city, state, nation, etc.) remains fixed. If one believes the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the scientific consensus of every industrialized nation, global warming is a serious problem that is almost entirely caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution. Given that nearly the entire industrialized world is in agreement that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced, how then is an effort in the U.S. to achieve this a greater threat to democracy than 9/11?

To answer that question, one must get to know Mr. Shimkus a little better. This is a man who opposes global warming legislation because he just doesn't feel it would make any difference. Why? That's right. Because God is taking care of it. We've heard this one before, like when Minnesota congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said in August 2008 that we don't need global warming legislation because "we all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet." Not to be outdone, Shimkus read scripture and invoked the creator Himself in a March 2009 senate hearing on climate change:




Not only will the earth end "only when God declares it is time to be over," as Shimkus asserts, but God already flooded the Earth once and promised he wouldn't do it again. ARE YOU CALLING GOD A LIAR?!!!

This is the point where a very lengthy discussion might ensue regarding the separation of church and state and the appropriateness of invoking religion in matters of science. I'll just say this: What a person chooses to believe in is his or her own choice and nothing should come between a person and their faith. Likewise, one person's faith should not intrude on a society's ability to better itself. Employing an ancient book to legislate complex scientific and political issues is reckless at best and at worst a sign of utter madness. I fear Mr. Shimkus is exhibiting more of the latter, and with leaders like this at the helm, it's no wonder the United States is bringing up the rear when it comes to addressing global climate change.

Now that we understand the kind of person we are dealing with here, let's return to Mr. Shimkus' recent comments regarding cap-and-trade, "the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country" ever experienced by the congressman. It's unclear to me whether this is an attempt at hyperbole by Shimkus or whether he really is this nutty. I'm inclined to believe he just really is this nutty. One would have to reside pretty far to the right of the political spectrum to believe that governments have no role in sponsoring the health and safety of their citizens. Also inhabiting the lunatic right are those who believe it is every American's God-given right to consume as much fossil fuel as possible, and that infringing on that right is more heinous than the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That said, I've never known a Republican to pass up an opportunity to call someone or something "anti-American," so there's likely some method in his madness.

Mr. Shimkus' antics aside, global climate change is a legitimate concern and America has dragged her feet for way too long on this issue. It has been made abundantly clear that the consumption of fossil fuels is not a viable energy model for the future. Fossil fuels are limited in quantity and they pollute the planet, speeding global warming and negatively impacting public health. Any model of the future that assumes population growth is fundamentally at odds with fossil fuel consumption. If Americans want a future consisting of one oil war after another, fossil fuel addiction would be the way to guarantee that outcome. Right wingers will say that cap-and-trade will cause the cost of oil, coal and natural gas to skyrocket, as companies pass on the costs of cap-and-trade to consumers. Fine by me. Let fuel prices go through the roof. Our society is clearly at a crossroads with regard to energy. Fossil fuels are on the way out, and a dramatic increase in the cost of such fuels may be just the catalyst needed to bring about a more speedy extinction.

'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.