Bush admin to check nation's oil one last time

I'm told that in the sport of wrestling, there's a colorful bit of slang that refers to a rather, uh, interesting move - an "oil check" - wherein one competitor gets a little friendly with the other competitor's rear end. It's meant to startle and distract them enough that the perpetrator can get a leg up in the match.

So when I read this Washington Post article detailing the Bush administration's last minute push to pass a whole slew of really terrible deregulatory legislation, I couldn't help but feel like they were trying to oil check the whole nation.

We've all been learning the harsh lesson of what happens when you deregulate the economy (some of us already knew what would happen, but the warnings went unheeded by those in power). How, then, can we justify ignoring those lessons completely when it comes to industry and the environment?

Here are just a few of the things the Bush admin is trying to do:

...lift a requirement that environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions and...give review authority to regional councils dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests.

...

...allow current emissions at a power plant to match the highest levels produced by that plant, overturning a rule that more strictly limits such emission increases. According to the EPA's estimate, it would allow millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, worsening global warming.

A related regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks.

A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations.

These are all, according to White House spokesman Tony Fratto, "well reasoned and are being considered with the best interests of the nation in mind."

You'll understand, I hope, if I utterly and completely distrust you, Tony. Unless, of course, what you mean by "best interests of the nation" is "best interests of industries with enough money." Then I'd believe you were telling the truth.

I have to give points to the Bush administration for sheer ambition. They've already done a mighty fine job of fucking things up pretty royally for the country and the world, but even now, just a couple of months before the end of Bush's term, they're still doing their damndest to continue with the raping and pillaging.

I'd say we could just wait and hope for an Obama presidency that would work to overturn all of this nonsense, but the problem is that re-implementing regulations is much, much more difficult than stripping them away.

Afterall, it's always harder to do the right thing.

So start putting some pressure on your elected officials, reminding them that there's more than just the election to worry about just now and that they need to oppose this shit with all their might. Unless they want that oil check, of course.

UPDATE: Oh this just gets better and better. Want. To punch. Something.

Van Hollen can't get his story straight

First, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen claimed that "There was no discussion with anybody involved in leadership with the Republican Party (or the McCain Campaign) about this lawsuit before it was brought." Then he said he had "no reason to believe” any of his aides discussed the case with the GOP or the McCain campaign.

This was all back in September, but maybe being on the losing end of a lawsuit has jogged his memory. On Oct. 26, Van Hollen was interviewed for a story on CNN, and when asked whether or not lawyers from the GOP had a discussion in his office the week before he filed the suit, he replied that "I understand that's true." When then pressed if he'd been asked by those lawyers to file the suit, he said "No. They may have asked lawyers in my office to file the lawsuit."

That's a bit of a different story than he was first telling when the whole thing came up back in September.

If there is an appeal of the ruling in this case, I would ask and hope that those handling it take a serious look at this man's various and contradictory statements. There's something seriously amiss when our Attorney General keeps changing his story about whether or not partisan politics had any influence over something as important as election law.

See the interview here (scroll down).

Living vicariously through CA and FL

On November 4th, citizens in both California and Florida will head to the polls not just to voice their preference for president, but also to help decide whether their states will write discrimination into their constitutions by banning gay marriage.

In California, this comes just seven months after the state's supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage and all its legal benefits to same-sex couples. Outraged that the whole "equal rights under the law" thing was actually being upheld, opponents of gay marriage rallied and put Proposition 8 onto the November ballot. Proposition 8, as I'm sure most of you already know, would re-ban homosexual couples from marrying and annul all of the same-sex marriages that have already taken place.

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Down in Florida, a similar ballot measure will be voted on come Nov. 4th - and it's eerily reminiscent of the one Wisconsin voted into law back in 2006. Though gay marriage is already illegal in Florida, Amendment 2 would "enshrine the prohibition in the Florida Constitution, making it nearly impossible for a judge to overturn." It would likely apply to domestic partnerships as well, which effects both straight and gay couples.

I still don't understand why some folks are so hell-bent on writing discrimination into the law. But America has spent every day since its inception fighting to make good on the original promises of the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. I guess, then, I shouldn't be surprised that the struggle continues, but since I'm an idealist at heart, it still makes me sad.

Take, for example, one of my favorite bands, the Ditty Bops. The dynamic duo at the band's center, Amanda Barrett and Abby DeWald, have been a couple for ten years and were just recently finally able to get married (they live in California). Now, I want you to watch this video and tell me why you want to strip these two of their rights and how on earth you could possibly disapprove of their relationship.

But you know what? It shouldn't matter whether or not they're the most adorable and talented couple ever (because they pretty much are), because no one seems to have as much of a problem with the many perfectly wacky straight folks who get married every day.

Because it shouldn't matter.

If two consenting, not immediately related to one another adults wish to enter into a legally binding relationship, with all of the federal benefits it entails, then it should absolutely be their right to do so. You don't get to decide for them. Period.

Unfortunately, a narrow majority of my fellow Wisconsinites were misguided enough to pass our blight of an amendment to do just that. And so I am left to fervently hope that California especially and Florida, too, do better.

If you live in either of those states, please, vote no. Donate money. Talk to your friends and neighbors who might disagree and be thinking of voting yes, and do so with compassion and logic. The struggle continues.

Thank goodness

The economy is in crisis, unemployment is on the rise, we're at war in two countries (and occasionally bombing a few others as well), there's a presidential election coming up, our environment needs some serious TLC, massive amounts of people are losing their homes, and that hand-holding sea otter just died.

And yet, our dutiful U.S. Senators have found time to kick up a fuss over a perceived lack of NFL games being shown to the teams' home towns.

Several members of the U.S. Senate said the National Football League is not making enough football games available on free television for local fans.

The NFL has said that it provides free television broadcasts in the home cities of competing teams.

But the senators have written a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying the NFL is too narrowly interpreting what constitutes a home city.

For example, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said the NFL does not consider the western Pennsylvania town of Johnstown to be part of the home market of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

The senators are asking the NFL to reconsider its policy. A message left with the NFL was not immediately returned.

Gosh, I feel so well represented by the Senate, I could just spit.

The good news for Oct. 28, 2008

There's a lot going on in the world that doesn't have much of anything to do with the impending U.S. elections. Some of this news is good, some not. All of it, I think, is worthwhile reading.

Still, be sure to get yourself educated and go vote next Tuesday. Seriously. If you don't and we meet in person, I can't be held responsible if my foot decides to kick you in the shins.

• [Washington Post] Rwanda now boasts the first female majority in the world for their Parliament. They've also been working hard since the genocide of the mid 90's to establish gender equality in the country. This is good stuff.
• [Glen Greenwald] So apparently an active U.S. Army unit has been assigned to NorthCom (that would be right here in the United States), and this is the first time that's ever been done. Because, y'know, there are strict Constitutional prohibitions against our standing army being assigned to domestic law enforcement duties. The ACLU, thankfully if unsurprisingly, is pressing the government for imformation about this potentially illegal move.
• [Stereohyped] I'm not sure who's behind this really poorly done and obviously fake campaign mailer, but it's both stupid and a fine example of the racist attitudes still held by far too many folks, even right here in Wisconsin.
• [Cracked] Five presidential elections even dumber than this one. Didn't think it was possible!
  

Despite public opinion, bus fares likely to go up

The Capital Times is reporting that, despite overwhelming public sentiment against the move, the city will likely increase bus fares when the final budget is passed.

I still don't think this is a good idea, and suspect that the increased fare may lower ridership or make it static enough so as to negate any financial benefit from the rate hike.

What I'm still in the process of finding out, too, is if the city currently has their fuel prices locked in, and if so, what that number is. In the past, they've been able to lock in at rates lower than the state average, saving them a good chunk of change. If that's still the case, then all this talk of the rate hike being related to higher fuel costs seems a bit dubious. That's not to say that the overall upward trend in prices isn't hurting them at all, but I'm skeptical of their claims that it's one of the main reasons for the increase. It doesn't help that offsetting fuel prices seems to be at the bottom of the list of things they'll do with the revenue.

I don't doubt that they're hurting. Everyone is. But I wonder if there are ways to shift the burden around so that it has less impact on essential services like mass transit. A few alders even made proposals that might have helped, but they were all rejected by the city's financial committee.

Presumably these are all people with a far better grasp on economics and the city/metro budget than I, but I can't help but wonder...and remain opposed to the rate hike.

Peds v. cars v. cyclists

What is it about the subject of vehicle-cyclist-pedestrian interactions that engenders so much anger in people? A recent Capital Times article dealing with the issue sparked a whole slew of comments, most pointing fingers at either inconsiderate drivers, bikers, or pedestrians. The resentment on all sides was palpable. And this certainly isn't unique to that article. I've come across it countless times whenever the subject comes up.

Because, y'know, it's never your fault. It's always the pedestrian who doesn't look before they cross the street, or the biker who runs a red light, or the driver who tries to run you down.

The fact of the matter is, I think, that all of us have the capacity to be the asshole--and all of us likely have been, at one time or another. And simply claiming that one or the other party is completely at fault for all the trouble on the road is wrong, and completely misses the bigger picture.

Bikers are, by law, supposed to act and be treated as fellow vehicles on the road. You ride with traffic, stop at stop lights and signs, signal your turns, and kit yourself out in the appropriate safety gear (helmet, lights, etc.). Not all bikers do this, however, and they're the ones who typically inspire the most hatred in drivers. Thing is, plenty of law-abiding bikers are still finding themselves at the receiving end of motorist's bile, simply for daring to share the streets with them. And even those drivers with nothing against bikers are sometimes prone to not paying enough attention. Heck, I'm an avid cyclist and I'm still sometimes times guilty of this when I'm in my car.

And pedestrians--especially, for whatever reasons, the students downtown--can be prone to wandering out into the street without so much as glancing up from their ipods. I don't know what these folks were taught as children, but apparently they missed the "look both ways" lecture.

I understand the frustration felt by all parties, as I've been all parties at one time or another. I think most of us have. But somehow, we seem prone to forgetting what it's like to be the cyclist when we're driving, or the driver when we're walking, etc. We're quick to anger at the slightest inconvenience, we zone out and don't pay enough attention to our surroundings, we let a sense of entitlement creep into our heads--and the results are often dangerous and tragic.

Simply put: we all need to suck it up and take responsibility for ourselves and the people with whom we share the city. Bikers need to strap on a helmet and obey the traffic laws. Pedestrians need to actually pay attention to their surroundings. Drivers need to remember that they're not the only ones on the road, calm down, and pay attention.

Because it's not just one party or the others responsibility to make our streets safer--it's all of ours. So put down the cell phone. We'll all be better off for it.