I Hate What You Just Said

Why does this idiot have his own show? Glenn Beck needs your help to screw the Democrats, even if it destroys the planet in the process:

This week the Democratic party will attempt to hold its first convention that is totally green. They will talk about recycling, buying carbon offsets, and even serve multi-colored foods for some reason.

What’s the problem with their going green? Well, the Democrats know all of these things are pointless gestures, but they’re using them to try and convince voters that they love the earth more than Republicans. If this works they will put into place policies that will hurt our economy and cause real disaster–not the fraudulent type they constantly whine about.

What can you to help? Take part in our carbon ONset program. We are asking you to make just a few small sacrifices to completely wipe out any potential energy savings the Democrats claim credit for.

The “sacrifices” include driving extra miles, running empty dishwashers, taking long showers, and replacing CFL bulbs with incandescent ones.

Today, we bring you a yummy little tasting flight of stupidity.

We’ll start with Representative Michele Bachman, Republican of Minnesota:

“[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she’s just trying to save the planet,” Bachmann told the right-wing news site OneNewsNow. “We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet — we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that.”

Whew! What a relief. Glad to know that’s sorted out. Because I was starting to get a little worried about that whole global warming thing. (Also - “they?” Is Jesus plural now?) Hey - do you think “they” could do anything about my gout?

Next, a little video. Stuart Shepard of Focus on the Family asks “would it be so wrong if we asked people to pray for rain” during Obama’s convention acceptance speech?

Best line: “If God decides - and it’s always up to God to decide…” That’s good stuff, no? In the event that he exists, God must be thinking, “thanks, Stu.”

I know this guy was trying to be funny, sort of, but Stuart Shepard and his ilk make me embarrassed to be a mammal.

And finally, Jabberin’ Joe Lieberman implicitly questions Barack Obama’s patriotism:

“In my opinion, the choice could not be more clear: between one candidate, John McCain, who’s had experience, been tested in war and tried in peace, another candidate who has not,’’ Mr. Lieberman said. “Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not. Between one candidate who’s a talker, and the other candidate who’s the leader America needs as our next president.” [Italics added]

You stay classy, Joe. You old jackass.

John McCain’s energy plan includes taking big bucks from big oil companies, and then doing their bidding.  But it apparently also includes this sort of complete bullshit (italics added):

We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. We need it now. [Barack Obama] has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage. The only thing I’ve heard him say is that we should inflate our tires. So he has no plan for addressing the energy challenges that we face. And we need drilling everywhere that the states and the governors, such as in the state of Florida, approve of.

This is what passes for political discourse in America today.  Instead of honestly debating Obama on the merits of his energy plan, Oily McWar would rather just trivialize the whole issue with misleading cutesy sound-bite garbage.

We all know that Oily isn’t terribly proficient with a computer, but if one looks at Obama’s website, one would find that the democratic candidate has a pretty detailed series of policy positions regarding energy and the environment.  You know, not just the tire-inflation part.  Just a few of Obama’s many proposals:

Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.

Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.

Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.

Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S

Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology

There’s a lot more, too.  Like setting national building efficiency goals, establishing a grant program for early adopters of energy-efficient construction codes, and investing in a digital smart grid system.

See?  More than just keeping your tires inflated.  Though, as it happens, that is a really good idea.

President George Bush signed off with a defiant farewell over his refusal to accept global climate change targets at his last G8 summit.

As he prepared to fly out from Japan, he told his fellow leaders: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

The Independent

What else can I say?  Our president is a dick who thinks that he’s funny.  Sure, you argue, Bush gave some ground at the talks, agreeing for the first time to reduce greenhouse emissions by 50% by 2050 after extracting signatures from China and India.  But these targets are well below those set by Kyoto protocol and such emissions are still on the rise worldwide and in the U.S.

Yeah, things are looking up, good times ahead.  We’re finally headed in the right direction and the G8 is showing the kind of leadership necessary to get the job done:

One day, in particular, he said, was “gloriously incoherent.” At a meeting in the morning, participants focused on finding ways to reduce gas prices, he said, while a session that afternoon focused on raising them through caps or taxes on fossil fuels.

The most discouraging aspect of the statements out of Japan, for many experts, was seeing the persistent gap between what science is saying about global warming and what countries are doing.

New York Times

Speaking with one voice…out of both sides of the mouth.  Now, that’s funny.

While the White House refuses to open official emails from the EPA containing policy recommendations they don’t like, the Pentagon is busy refusing orders from the EPA to clean up toxic chemical spills on several military bases.

The Washington Post reports that chemicals posing “imminent and substantial” dangers to the health of the public and the environment are present in the soil and groundwater at several military installations. The EPA has ordered to Pentagon to add the sites to the Superfund list and begin a clean-up of the affected areas.

Apparently, cleaning up is with the terrorists:

The Pentagon has . . . declined to sign agreements required by law that cover 12 other military sites on the Superfund list of the most polluted places in the country. The contracts would spell out a remediation plan, set schedules, and allow the EPA to oversee the work and assess penalties if milestones are missed.

Experts in the field of environmental law say that this move is extraordinary:

“This is stunning,” said Rena Steinzor, who helped write the Superfund laws as a congressional staffer and now teaches at the University of Maryland Law School and is president of the nonprofit Center for Progressive Reform. “The idea that they would refuse to sign a final order — that is the height of amazing nerve.”

Yes, the “height of amazing nerve.” Pretty much sums up the past 7 years.

I would venture a guess that most Americans think that the Environmental Protection Agency is involved in, you know, protecting the environment.

Not under the Bush administration.

Take this example. According to today’s Washington Post, last December the EPA tried to submit a proposed rule to “limit greenhouse-gas emissions on the grounds that they pose a threat to public welfare.”

The EPA emailed the proposal over to the White House for inspection. According to the Post,

[U]pon learning that EPA had hit the “send” button just minutes earlier, the White House called again to demand that the e-mail be recalled.

“I’m sorry, Mr. President, I just sent that official, scientifically-vetted policy proposal seconds ago!”

Not to worry, the White House has a plan for this kind of thing. The New York Times explains what happened next:

The White House . . . refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

“What email? Anyone see an email from the EPA about CO2 around here?”

“Do you mean the study that was the direct result of the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that stated ‘greenhouse gases are a pollutant’ and subsequently ‘ordered federal environmental officials to re-examine their refusal to limit emissions of the gases from cars and trucks’?

“Yeah, that one.”

“Nope, haven’t seen it anywhere.”

Don’t worry, America; the Bush administration is in the reality business. Everything is going to be OK in the end:

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

If you’re in the White House and see a plan that makes us healthier, saves the environment, AND is good for the economy, there is only one thing to do: Delete.