McCain: how many times can you flip-flop in one interview?

Skip to 1:45 for John McCain's opinion(s) on the bailout bill that just passed. Many opinions, my precious.

Lowering the drinking age?

I just heard of a few state proposals to lower the legal age of drinking alcohol in bars and restaurants to 18 from 21. The proposals would leave the age for purchasing alcohol from a liqour store at 21. I can't decide if I think the former is:

• A Good Idea, to bring college-age consumption into the open. "Better to have them do it in public than hiding in a dorm."
• A Bad Idea, given that alcohol impairs healthy brain development all the way into your 20s (and thus we should want kids to drink less).
  

Thoughts? Reactions?

Bush: I regret that I have but one life to give to my country telco

In the ongoing coverage of the FISA renewal, mcjoan of Dailykos notes that President Bush has immunity for telecommunications companies as his litmus test for the "Protect America Act" (gag me with a spoon).

The interesting twist? Bush has already declared that Americans could die if this renewal is not passed by Congress. In other words:

Let's just remember Sen. Kennedy's summation of Bush's position on FISA:

The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies. (emphasis mine)

You can get more on the new wiretap law from Moldy's ongoing FISA coverage.

How to write your senator about the wiretap debate

Here's a copy of the letter I wrote to my two senators about the current wiretap debate in the U.S. Senate. Please feel free to copy and paste:

Dear Senator XXX,

I'm writing to you about the wiretapping legislation currently being debated in the Senate. I'm extremely disappointed in the course of the debate. There are two provisions that I strongly urge you to support:

1) Exclusivity. Without this provision, the legislation is meaningless. It would allow a president to simply ignore the civil liberties protections supposedly guaranteed by the act. It was part of the original FISA law for a good reason and its violation by President Bush shows that it is just as important now.

2) No immunity for violators. Telecommunications companies who willfully violated FISA are using the Nuremberg defense and it's tragic that the Senate is accepting it. President Bush acted illegally. Whether or not he is brought to account should have no impact on the guilt of these private companies who were fully aware of the illegality of their behavior. I strongly encourage you to oppose immunity for lawbreakers.

Sincerely,

Think wiretapping is over? Think again

If you haven't heard much on illegal wiretapping since a judge struck down the program, the big decisions about it are being made in the U.S. Senate today. And the decisions aren't positive for rule of law and liberty:

• The Senate rejected amendments that would have held telecommunications companies responsible for their participation in illegal wiretapping. Basically, the Senate is saying, "you broke the law, but because Bush told you to, you're forgiven." Nuremberg defense, anyone?
• The Senate rejected "exclusivity," a provision from the original FISA law that would say that this wiretap law covers ALL wiretapping done by the U.S. government. To leave it out says, "this law covers wiretapping, except if the President decides to do some other kinds of wiretapping and says it's not covered under this law. Basically, he can do whatever he wants."

Dailykos has several ongoing threads about the FISA debate. Call your Senator and tell them to protect civil liberties and punish those who break laws about illegally spying on Americans!

For more on the wiretap legislatio, read up on what provisions SHOULD be included.

Wiretapping update: The Senate debates FISA

I don't have time to provide much summary, but the U.S. Senate is embroiled in a debate about wiretapping and other domestic surveillance. They passed a stopgap bill that expires in February and there are two key issues:

• Will phone companies that broke the wiretap law at the behest of the Bush administration be given immunity for their illegal activities?
• Will Congress give Bush a de facto censure by stripping his efforts to legalize the warrantless wiretapping after the fact?

Read more on it here.

Flushing good money after bad

With the U.S. supposedly teetering on the edge of recession, Congress is preparing an "economic stimulus" package to [help prevent recession/slow the progress toward recession/make the recession less severe]. Unfortunately, Paul Krugman (economist) notes that most of the stimulus isn't going to those who will actually spend it. Which makes it a pretty expensive ($150 billion) "not much of a stimulus" package.

This energy bill overlooks climate change

While the provisions excised (15% renewable electricity mandate) promised to make a real dent in carbon emissions, the two biggest remaining provisions in the federal energy bill won't help much at all.

In fact, the highly touted fuel economy increases may actually increased carbon emissions. Over at TriplePundit, they explore how efficiency improvements tend to lead to increased consumption (via population and economic growth). And increased fuel consumption means more CO2.

Brilliant.

Climate change policy: cap and trade flopped in Europe

The U.S. is getting much closer to regulating carbon emissions to combat global warming, but the most likely policy is a carbon cap and trade system. Problem is, Europe tried such a system starting three years ago and this interview discusses how that program has flopped.

This is why a cap-and-rebate may be a much better option.

Tip of the hat to Triple Pundit for the story.

That's the point

In response to the climate change bill introduced in the U.S. Senate, proposing greenhouse gas reductions of 65% from 2005 levels by 2050, the CEO of the American Chemistry Council had this to say:

The bill would "turn energy markets upside down, causing massive reductions in coal usage and enormous increases in natural gas and renewable fuels usage."

Yes.

Great leadership from the GOP

The moderate Republicans in Congress claim to care about the American people's dissatisfaction with the Iraq conflict, but what do they do?

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, along with Minnesota's Norm Coleman, North Carolina's Liddy Dole and Tennessee's Lamar Alexander, drafted a bold new plan that would move our troops into a new support role in Iraq, while demanding that we begin a drawdown of American troops.

In 2009.

The article looks no further than the re-election battles these bold senators face in 2008 for his rationale.

And the war goes on

Senate Democrats failed to convince enough Republicans to support legislation to end the Iraq War last night. The Democratic leadership pushed for an actual deadline this time - the legislation would have required troops to return home by May 2008.

Interestingly, a recent poll shows that while 43% of Americans want troops home by next spring (the bill's target), another 40% would be satisfied if troops were withdrawn to Iraqi bases to focus on training locals to take over the fight.

Asked another way, however, 53% of Americans want to end the military presence in Iraq in one year or less. In other words, it seems some people have bought the Republican line that withdrawal equals defeat (or that we're "turning the corner" in Iraq...)

A lot of the stalling has come down to the anticipated report by the leading commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. Planned for September, it will provide feedback on the "surge" and provide President Bush with some badly needed political cover for the next two months. Bush has made a lot of hay about trusting the "commanders on the ground" (though his administration has demonized and fired three already), so I'm fascinated to see what happens to Petraeus should he refuse to toe the line.

Legislation: wiretapping must following FISA

If the bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives today is made law, warrantless wiretapping will become one of those tales-of-lawlessness-under-Republicans we tell the grandchildren about. The bill makes it explicit that the only wiretapping the government may do must be under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), requiring a warrant from a court.

Congress restoring the balance of powers and judicial oversight over wiretaps? It's a great day.

Tip of the hat to Slashdot for the story.

Bush vetoes war spending, cuts off troops

If the media were actually liberal, that'd be the headline. A quick survey of Google News shows that while the media likes drama - "a standoff, a showdown" - they shoot ideologically straight.

It'll be interesting to see where the debate in Congress goes, since the Democratic leadership doesn't seem inclined to kowtow to the Single Track Mind In Chief:

REID: The president may be content with keeping our troops mired in the middle of an open-ended civil war, but we're not _ and neither are most Americans.

PELOSI: The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him.

President Bush opens his mouth about Iraq spending

I wanted to write on the inanity of President Bush's comments against the war funding bill headed for his desk, but I couldn't get it together yesterday. Fortunately, the folks at DailyKos did. Here's a teaser, before you head to DailyKos for the punchline:

Yes, George Bush hates the thought of the troops being caught in the middle of the showdown between the White House and Congress over the supplemental spending bill for Iraq...

Iraq War Deadline?

The NY Times reports that the U.S. Senate has successfully passed legislation that attaches a deadline to the Iraq War. However, closer analysis of the bill suggests that it may not be as ironclad as it appears. In fact, the legislation leaves a lot of leeway for keeping combat troops in Iraq. The legislation would...

...require President Bush to begin a phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 120 days of the enactment of the resolution. It would set a goal (not binding) of redeploying all troops by March 31, 2008. After this date, remaining troops could remain in the country for the following:

• Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
• Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
• Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. (emphasis mine)

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but President Bush has already talked about Iraq as a major front in the war on terror. That third bullet point looks a lot like a blank check. Regardless, it represents the first time that Democrats have successfully exercised any Congressional authority in the Iraq conflict.

Despite the loopholes in the deadline, every Senate Republican except Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) opposed the legislation.

"Wars cannot be run from these hallowed and comfortable and sanctified chambers 10,000 miles away from the war zone," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.

Good point, Senator Bond. Speaking of the Oval Office, perhaps they shouldn't be started from there either.

The Senate bill will head to conference committee for reconciliation with the House bill, which has stronger language about the deadline, calling for most troops to be out by Sept. 1, 2008.

Legislation proposes first cap on US carbon emissions

The Energy Blog has the scoop on the first legislation that may institute a carbon emissions cap for the United States. The cap doesn't take effect for several years, nor does it decline particularly quick, but it would be an enormous first step toward combating global warming to even admit we have a problem, which we do in spades...


Details of the bill:

• Would cap carbon emissions in the U.S. at 2004 levels starting in 2012.
  
• The cap would decline slowly to 2/3 of 2004 emissions by 2050.
  

One worry is that the legislation's sponsor, John McCain, said that it "must be bolstered by other assurances that costs will be minimized." This is ridiculous. The United States is responsible for one-quarter of the world's carbon emissions, and therefore at least one-quarter of the surging CO₂ and global average temperature. Scientists have said that emissions need to be reduced by 75-80 percent - immediately - to forestall additional climate change impacts. The irony is that trying to minimize costs of carbon reductions will just mean higher costs in trying manage climate change - such as moving all of Miami to higher ground.

Even more frustrating, the legislation ignores research by the Congressional Budget Office suggesting that a carbon tax would be much more efficient at reducing carbon emissions (not to mention it could provide a substantial sum of money with which to help reduce emissions). But taxes mean paying, something we're not used to doing under this administration.

And yet, for all its flaws, it's better than doing nothing.