Making Baby Jesus Cry

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ironweed
Don't forget the oil companies! After all, how much are the soldiers in Iraq really going to have when it comes time to stump up the campaign contributions? Their families are already in hock to pay for Kevlar vests . . .

• July 26, 2005
  Lawmakers Reach a Deal on New Energy Policies
  By CARL HULSE and MICHAEL JANOFSKY
  WASHINGTON, July 26 - After being stymied for years, Congress is on the verge of enacting a broad energy plan that would provide generous federal subsidies to the oil and gas industries, encourage new nuclear power plant construction and try to whet the nation's appetite for renewable fuels.
  
  The mammoth energy measure, hammered together during a final nine-hour negotiating session that went into the early morning hours today, also gives the government new power to ease growing imports of liquefied natural gas and takes a swipe at a bid by China to acquire an American oil company.
  
  "This balanced bill will lower energy prices for consumers, spur our economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs and take unprecedented steps to promote greater energy conservation and efficiency," said Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
  
  But some lawmakers and other critics say the bill is a wrongheaded giveaway to energy companies at a time of huge profits and represents a monumental missed opportunity by failing to take serious steps to reduce the nation's reliance on oil imported from the globe's trouble spots.
  
  "This bill is simply a failure," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and a senior member of the energy committee. "It is a huge waste of money."
  
  Should Congress pass the bill and send it this week to President Bush, it would represent a long-sought victory for an administration that entered the White House touting its expertise on energy matters but was unable to produce a new policy despite a major summer blackout two years ago and soaring gasoline prices.
  
  Even advocates of the measure acknowledge that it will do almost nothing to immediately reduce the price of gas though they say it sets the stage for a change in the country's energy mix in the years ahead. The bill does contain a series of law changes and new regulations intended to ensure the reliability of the power grid in an effort to prevent future blackouts.
  
  Mr. Barton, who in his first full Congress as chairman was eager to deliver a measure that has eluded Congress for more than four years, dropped a contentious plan to provide legal immunity to manufacturers of a gasoline additive blamed in pollution in order to get an agreement. The bill also sidesteps the issue of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling - another past sticking point - though Republican advocates of Alaskan drilling intend to win that battle in a budget measure expected to come up later this year.
  
  House and Senate negotiators came to agreement on broad energy legislation early today, after years of stalemate.
  
  "We hope to have the bill on the House floor on Wednesday and I think the Senate is going to put it up on Thursday," said Mr. Barton as he concluded negotiations shortly before 3 a.m. Eastern time.
  
  The measure touches on virtually every aspect of American energy production and consumption, including the electrical grid, hybrid cars, traditional oil and gas drilling, and incentives to develop new energy sources. But it does little to immediately lower the price of gasoline at the pump.
  
  As they wound up their talks, lawmakers agreed to a significant new requirement to add corn-based ethanol to the gasoline supply, which will build support for the measure from farm state lawmakers.
  
  Working furiously to try to strike an energy deal, the negotiators killed two major provisions aimed at curbing consumption of traditional fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal. They also agreed to slow the potential takeover of Unocal by a Chinese oil company to allow for a study of the national security and economic implications of the acquisition.
  
  In a decision that could cost support for the bill from some coastal state lawmakers, negotiators beat back efforts by Florida and California House members to strip from the measure a provision that would allow an inventory of offshore oil and gas resources. Some lawmakers view the inventory as a precursor to a push to allow drilling off states that have opposed it.
  
  "I'm here to say that the people of North Carolina right now don't want drilling," said Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina. "We can force it on them or wait until they are ready."
  
  The House and Senate reached similar agreement on energy legislation in 2003, but the measure stalled in the Senate over objections to a plan to provide producers and distributors of the gasoline additive MTBE some legal immunity from lawsuits. In a decision that helped the bill's prospects this year, lawmakers on Sunday abandoned that plan. Hoping to dodge another obstacle, senators on Monday rejected a House proposal to relax some clean air standards.
  
  Approval of the legislation would be a victory for President Bush, who has pressed for a new energy policy since taking office in 2001 and urged lawmakers to deliver a plan before leaving at the end of this week for a monthlong summer recess.
  
  "Four years is long enough to wait for comprehensive energy legislation," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Monday.
  
  The final version of the energy plan is certain to come under attack by some lawmakers and conservation groups who consider it too heavily skewed in favor of traditional oil and gas companies, which it showers with billions of dollars of aid and tax breaks at a time when high oil prices are producing huge profits.
  
  As the nine-hour negotiating session was nearing an end, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, failed in an effort to eliminate some of the relief from drilling royalties that the industry would receive through the bill, arguing that it was wrong to let oil companies escape fees for drilling on public land. "We might as well be giving tax breaks to Donald Trump and Warren Buffett here tonight," said Mr. Markey. The Republican-led House majority on the conference committee quickly rejected his proposal.
  
  In a disappointment for environmental advocates, House members on Monday rejected an effort to incorporate a plan passed by the Senate to require utilities to use more renewable energy like wind and solar power to generate electricity. They also defeated a bid to direct the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one million barrels a day within 10 years.
  
  Backers of the initiative to identify the oil savings said it was an alternative to the politically difficult approach of increasing automotive gas mileage standards and would demonstrate that Congress was serious about cutting the nation's dependence on oil imports.
  
  "We are having an energy bill that is doing so much on the supply side that we need to address the demand side," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who said the goal was the "bare minimum of what we ought to be doing."
  
  But Republican opponents of the plan said the fuel savings target could lead to unpopular restrictions like mandatory car pools and put too much responsibility for achieving the goal in the hands of the president.
  
  "Just telling the president to wave a magic wand and tell each and every one of us that we need to conserve may sound good," said Mr. Barton, who was in charge of the House-Senate negotiations, "but those of us elected by the people every two years have a different view of that."
  
  Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the senior Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said his plan to require power plant operators who now rely on coal, oil and natural gas to increase their use of renewable fuels was a low-cost, market-driven approach to cutting demand for fossil fuels and easing air pollution.
  
  Under the proposal, which has repeatedly passed the Senate, utilities would have to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through renewable fuels by 2020.
  
  But opponents of the initiative, known as the renewable portfolio standard, said it would drive up the cost of electricity, conflict with similar state initiatives and put a burden on utilities in some regions where acceptable alternative fuels are in short supply.
  
  While House and Senate negotiators on energy policy met into the night in an effort to agree on an energy measure that could clear the House and Senate this week, a separate group of lawmakers was trying to hash out the tax elements of an energy proposal.
  
  Lawmakers and aides said they expected the tax breaks and incentives to cost in the neighborhood of $11.5 billion: more than sought by the House and White House but less than approved by the Senate. Should lawmakers agree on that figure, the tax package was expected to include a substantial emphasis on tax credits for energy efficiency.
  

This and the corp tax bill from summer '04 Make Baby Jesus Cry.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It doesn't? Cool! Guns and butter, indeed.

Or, perhaps, this is guns and more guns. Butter will be amply provided, too -- after all, this is the Bush Administration, where Deficits Don't Matter.

Eventually some Democrat will come along and clean up the deficits, silly. The Democrats are, after all, the new party of fiscal responsibility. Thankfully the Republicans have been too busy protecting the country from gay marriages to notice.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is a waste of money. Every indication is that SDI will not work anytime soon, and can be defeated by much cheaper countermeasures.

Cite please. And a cite by a real expert in the field. Not some meandering diatribe from a political scientist in Mother Jones. And are you saying that the Patriot missile doesn't work?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Or our enemies can deliver nuclear warheads in other ways -- in a freighter, .

We already discussed why this is not as easy as it sounds. It would be easier for North Korea to launch a missile than smuggle one into the US. In addition, why do we only protect ourselves from one of these possiblities? Just because they can punch us doesn't mean we can assume they won't stab us.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop or by cruise missiles launched by submarines, etc. Again, for much less money. For that money, we can buy better protection.

How many countrys can luanch a cruise missile from a Submarine? Not many rogue states that I know. Even china, as I understand it, can't luanch a missile from a submarine.

So what do we do about the fact that North Korea can hit a city on the Pacific Coast of the United States? Is there some simpler way to deal with that than SDI? Do we just let that lunatic keep sitting there with a gun at our heads or do we do something about it?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It doesn't? Cool! Guns and butter, indeed.

Or, perhaps, this is guns and more guns. Butter will be amply provided, too -- after all, this is the Bush Administration, where Deficits Don't Matter.

The primary responsiblity of the Federal government is guns. Don't remember a mention of butter in the US constitution. I do remember something about those things not delineated in the constitution are better left to the states or the people.

Government is about priorities. Defending US citizens should come first. Call me crazy. If you want to cut something, don't cut the first priority. Cut maybe the third or fourth. That is another crazy idea that I have. They means defending the United States from WMD's by missile or being smuggled in not cut. Maybe a third and fourth priority not cut. Then start cutting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cite please. And a cite by a real expert in the field. Not some meandering diatribe from a political scientist in Mother Jones. And are you saying that the Patriot missile doesn't work?

You'll have a harder time finding an account that the thing does work, so you go first. For an in-depth account of the technological hurdles that ICBM defense faces, read Into The Wild Blue Yonder by Frances FitzGerald (I believe). An excellent book, and an interesting account of the politics within the Reagan White House. For something more web-accessible, look at this or this or this.
The Patriot system doesn't work particularly well, and the hurdles associated with SDI are much greater.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'll have a harder time finding an account that the thing does work, so you go first. For an in-depth account of the technological hurdles that ICBM defense faces, read Into The Wild Blue Yonder by Frances FitzGerald (I believe). An excellent book, and an interesting account of the politics within the Reagan White House. For something more web-accessible, look at this or this or this.
The Patriot system doesn't work particularly well, and the hurdles associated with SDI are much greater.

My god.

Do you realize the Wright brothers first flight went 50 feet then crashed? Good thing you weren't on the budget committee for further flight experimentation.

Oh. but global warming has been proven.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My god.

Do you realize the Wright brothers first flight went 50 feet then crashed? Good thing you weren't on the budget committee for further flight experimentation.

Oh. but global warming has been proven.

A real conservative would assume the worst about these things -- i.e., that global warming threatens us, and that missile defense might not work.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'll have a harder time finding an account that the thing does work, so you go first. For an in-depth account of the technological hurdles that ICBM defense faces, read Into The Wild Blue Yonder by Frances FitzGerald (I believe). An excellent book, and an interesting account of the politics within the Reagan White House. For something more web-accessible, look at this or this or this.
The Patriot system doesn't work particularly well, and the hurdles associated with SDI are much greater.

I ask for a cite from an expert and you quote a biased reporter from Slate. Just what I said not to do. These negative comments on SDI always come from reporters, political scientists and columnists who "pick apart" administration reports. How about a former Military person who was directly involved in the program, or someone in the industry working directly on the program or who worked directly on the program.

And you still didn't say what we are to do about North Koreas ability to lob a nuclear missiles at San Francisco.

[Spanky]

I just looked up Francis Fitzgerald's book. Another left wing reporter. If you are going to cite left wing biased non-experts why cite at all? My Mom is friends with Dr. Helen Caldicott. I asked her about cites in her book and when we looked at them together all the cites were to other liberals. None of them were primary cites.

There are all these liberals out there, Caldicott being one of them, that just cite eachother. It is like a circular firing squad.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I ask for a cite from an expert and you quote a biased reporter from Slate. Just what I said not to do. These negative comments on SDI always come from reporters, political scientists and columnists who "pick apart" administration reports. How about a former Military person who was directly involved in the program, or someone in the industry working directly on the program or who worked directly on the program.

And you still didn't say what we are to do about North Koreas ability to lob a nuclear missiles at San Francisco.

I just looked up Francis Fitzgerald's book. Another left wing reporter. If you are going to cite left wing biased non-experts why cite at all?

Kaplan is a former military person, turned reporter. I'm not sure why you think reporters have some bias that renders them impervious to logic when it comes to SDI, but that people who are working "directly" on the program -- i.e., whose livelihood depends on the prospect that SDI will work -- have some line on the truth. The conservatives hereabouts who argue against global warming like to say that all of the academic scientists with impeccable credentials who say the Earth is warming are biased because they stand to make money if there is a problem. Apparently this logic doesn't apply to ICBMs.

News flash: The "left wing" has produced some good reporters. You can't dismiss reportage by calling the author "left-wing." It may work at the state Republican convention, but not here.

Listen, like you, I live in the San Francisco area, and I'm not thrilled at the prospect that North Korean missiles can reach us. But I'd rather that my government was doing something to actually address the problem, and I have no faith that SDI falls into that category. There are no easy solutions to the problem of North Korea's nuclear program.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Kaplan is a former military person, turned reporter. I'm not sure why you think reporters have some bias that renders them impervious to logic when it comes to SDI, but that people who are working "directly" on the program -- i.e., whose livelihood depends on the prospect that SDI will work -- have some line on the truth. The conservatives hereabouts who argue against global warming like to say that all of the academic scientists with impeccable credentials who say the Earth is warming are biased because they stand to make money if there is a problem. Apparently this logic doesn't apply to ICBMs.

News flash: The "left wing" has produced some good reporters. You can't dismiss reportage by calling the author "left-wing." It may work at the state Republican convention, but not here.

Listen, like you, I live in the San Francisco area, and I'm not thrilled at the prospect that North Korean missiles can reach us. But I'd rather that my government was doing something to actually address the problem, and I have no faith that SDI falls into that category. There are no easy solutions to the problem of North Korea's nuclear program.

Kaplan has colum in Slate and Fitzgerald wrote books against the Vietnam war. You don't see me citing O'Reilly, Buchanan or Novak. Obviously we know what their positions will be.

Here is an interesting critique of Fitzgerald's book

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...tzgerald&hl=en

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/113857.shtml

Good points here. Michael Moore (did not)/(could not) make Supersize Me!

• The Increasingly Ugly Left
  Tammy Bruce
  Tuesday, July 26, 2005
  It's always shocking when the left unmasks itself — it's usually very brief but when it happens not only can't you turn away, it's actually important that you don't. While it would seem impossible, the left has found a new low, this time courtesy of both the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.
  On the same day, both newspapers published bizarre attacks on the most basic values of personal appearance and physical health of the president and those he supports. It's the newest indication of how frustrated and frenzied the left has grown in the face of an America which refuses to join them in their drowning pool.
  
  In a piece for the Los Angeles Times on July 22, 2005, titled "The (over)exercise of Power," Jonathan Chait notes he finds the president's interest in exercise "disturbing." He bleats, "What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy." As opposed to a president's obsession with Big Macs and a certain intern?
  
  Chait finds the fact that the president makes time to exercise "astonishing." He then notes: "My guess is that Bush associates exercise with discipline. ... The notion of a connection between physical and mental potency is, of course, silly. ..."
  
  Really? Not according to the medical establishment and the surgeon general's office, which notes the benefits of exercise. Such as? Better sleep, reduced tension and stress, reduction of high blood pressure, reduction of anxiety and depression, reduced risk of colon and breast cancer, healthy bones, muscles and joints, improved self-image, and generally improved physical health.
  
  For the most powerful man on earth, the man on whose shoulders the fate of the free world rests, the president clearly recognizes exercise is an imperative component to his being able to do the job.
  
  Chait tries to assert his point about the "silliness" of connecting exercise with mental acuity by arguing, "Consider all the perfectly toned airheads in Hollywood — or perhaps, even the president himself." The last time I checked, most actresses in Hollywood are emaciated, they are not "perfectly toned." There is a difference between being thin and being healthy — a distinction lost on Chait and Hollywood in general.
  
  It would be easy to dismiss Chait as just another "journalist" who makes a living hating the president, but there's more to it than that. You see, leftists harbor a personal jealousy of people unlike them.
  
  And who would that be? People considered "on the right" or "conservative," those who have a healthier, happier, more positive view of life. When you view the future with optimism, when you feel you are in charge of your destiny, you're going to be kinder to and take better care of yourself.
  
  The pettiness of Chait's argument reaches its pinnacle of envy with an insistent but unconvincing shout of I-Have-Self-Esteem-Too! in his last gasp. Chait closes by accusing the president's encouragement of exercise among Americans as a further indication of how "out of touch he is. It's nice for Bush that he can take an hour or two out of every day to run, bike, or pump iron. Unfortunately, most of us have more demanding jobs than he does."
  
  Wow, that says it all, doesn't it? Chait is smarter, more clever, is much busier and certainly more important than the president. And he doesn't even need to lift his keester out of his chair! Make no mistake here — the Left is obsessed with one thing: mainstreaming their nihilistic, empty lives. Within their narcissism and desire to be ‘normal,' society must be made to look like them, and let's be honest here — their world of victimhood, depression and hate is not a pretty one.
  
  Consider their political and public leadership — those who are supposed to be the cream of the crop, meant to attract others to their camp, the Role Models. Teddy Kennedy. The Clintons. Lynne Stewart. Barbra Streisand. Whoopi Goldberg. Rosie O'Donnell. Michael Moore. Alec Baldwin. Al Franken. Need I say more?
  
  During my time with the National Organization for Women, one of the (many) things that disturbed me during national board meetings was the fact that many of the women seemed to be allergic to bathing, and especially frightened of the concept of ‘grooming.'
  
  The simplest things reveal that you are in a room full of unhappy people — many were significantly overweight, and by grooming I mean engaging in the simple act of running a brush though your hair, brushing one's teeth, visiting a dentist if need be (at least on occasion), and simply caring enough about yourself to at least attempt to appear healthy.
  
  When I would dare to bring up the issue of appearance (as gently as one could imagine), that notion, of course, was rejected as "surrendering to the male-dominated view of female beauty." Hey, how about surrendering to not being repulsive? That helps every cause, whatever it may be.
  
  Of course, on the Left, one gets lost in groupthink. Personal health, exercise and being aware of one's own body in itself is an indication that you're conscious of yourself. Yet it is personal unconsciousness which is encouraged and fostered in leftist activist and leadership circles.
  
  Being Unhealthy and celebrating the Ungroomed is an art form on the Left. And ultimately, as evidenced by Chait's opinion piece, those who do take care of themselves, and dare to remind society of how things should be, are demonized. Why? Because they serve as a counterpoint to what the Left is not.
  
  You see, it now cannot be ignored that one side of the political spectrum even looks unwell. And how does the Left strive to make that irrelevant? By marginalizing those who are unlike them — the physically healthy, those who actually take care of themselves, are to be mocked and shunned.
  
  Think I'm being too extreme? Consider Robin Givhan's coverage of John Roberts' family at the president's press conference announcing Judge Roberts as his nominee for the Supreme Court. In her Washington Post story, also on July 22, 2005, titled "An Image a Little Too Carefully Crafted," Givhan eclipsed Chait with an astounding pettiness thought only in existence on the elementary school playground. Givhan actually attacks Judge Roberts' wife and children for being groomed and well-dressed.
  
  "His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues — like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. ... Separate the child from the clothes, which do not acknowledge trends, popular culture or the passing of time. They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money. ..."
  
  In other words, the Roberts children should have been dressed in GAP clothes, preferably with a piercing of one body part or another. While Josie, their daughter, would have been more appropriate in a pair of low-rider jeans which make refrigerator-repairmen out of little girls.
  
  President and Mrs. Bush and the Roberts family make the mistake of not pledging allegiance to the decline of culture. They insult the Left by reminding intellectually lazy Slaves to Decay like Chait and Givhan that class, decorum and respect still exist. Tradition, caring for one's family and caring for oneself are still values that prevail.
  
  Is Lynne Stewart to be the new American beauty standard? Is Michael Moore, and the slow suicide of morbid obesity, to be sought after? Is Ward Churchill to be the New Ideal Man? Is the discipline brought by exercise and self-restraint so frightening that we would prefer to have a quadruple-bypass like Bill Clinton?
  
  After all, if you care enough about yourself to resist a Big Mac and Krispy Kreme, you would also have the discipline to resist an intern. Unless, of course, your world is one where there are no standards, exercise is "creepy," and looking good is "old fashioned." Theirs is a world, as Bill Clinton mused, where you do what you want ‘because you can.'
  
  Thank goodness Americans are deciding they deserve better.

I always make sure I have a solid workout as close in time as possible to any important argument. What the fuck is with you people? I know Ty and coltrane claim to run. Are they disgusted with their party, but stuck with it like us about gay rights?

[sgtclub]

[i]Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I always make sure I have a solid workout as close in time as possible to any important argument.

Really? When I work out before work I'm far too agressive. Should hold off on the roids until after work?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Kaplan has colum in Slate and Fitzgerald wrote books against the Vietnam war. You don't see me citing O'Reilly, Buchanan or Novak. Obviously we know what their positions will be.

Kaplan is a reporter; O'Reilly is a blowhard, Buchanan is a politician, and Novak walks the line between political hack and op-ed columnist. If you're going to dismiss anything written by someone who writes in a place like Slate, e.g., for "bias," small wonder that you think SDI will work.

Here is an interesting critique of Fitzgerald's book

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...rald&hl=en</a>

Here's a particularly impressive nugget of reasoning from that "critique":

• Other countries have nuclear missiles, countries which hate America, and they point these missiles at us. It just shouldn't be that hard to build a technology which will track incoming missiles and shoot them down.

With critical reasoning skills like that, who needs books?

And recall that I didn't commend that book to you for its psychological portrayal of Reagan, which is what seems to have that reviewer's underwear in a knot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Kaplan is a reporter; O'Reilly is a blowhard, Buchanan is a politician, and Novak walks the line between political hack and op-ed columnist. If you're going to dismiss anything written by someone who writes in a place like Slate, e.g., for "bias," small wonder that you think SDI will work.

We can hit a distant asteroid by a probe that flew for 15 years, and that was with 20 year old technology. The only way to solve the technical challenges, is to address them. We certainly can. The only legitimate argument might be its not worthwhile, but saying it can't be done when looked at in light of the challenges we have solved, is silly.