Not necessarily the biggest, or the most influential or important, just my personal favorites. No particular order, but the first 5 are pretty clearly in the top tier
First teir
1. The Roots: Things Fall Apart (1999). Brilliant. The Roots are an amazing group, and although the earlier Illadelph Halflife and the later The Tipping Point are also must haves, Things Fall Apart is nothing short of a hip hop work of art. The beautiful You Got Me made me an Erykah Badu fan, I love the hard-hitting 100% Dundee, the dark Step Into the Realm, but the best tune on the album might be a little collaborative ditty with Mos Def called Double Trouble. So “either stand tall or sit the fuck down.”
2. The Beastie Boys: Check your Head (1992). This album would make my Top 10 Albums of All Time list. Creative, unique, and fun as hell, Check Your Head is a masterpiece. We could see a shift to the more creative side with Paul’s Boutique, but in this album, the Beasties jumped in with both feet and made a huge splash in the hip hop ocean.
3. Notorious B.I.G.: Ready to Die (1994). Hard, tight, and oozing with skill. Biggie Small’s first was his best. Or should I say techniques. Let Biggie say it himself: “I got techniques drippin’ out my butt cheeks/sleep on my stomach so I don’t fuck up my sheets.” And: “No spouse in the house so she rode for self/to the hospital, to see if she could get a little help/Umbilical cord's wrapped around my neck/I'm seein' my death and I ain't even took my first step/I made it out, I'm bringin' mad joy/The doctor looked and said, ‘He's gonna be a Bad Boy’.”
4. 2-Pac: Strictly 4 my N.I.G.G.A.Z. (1993). An early 2-Pac album, and his best by far. It’s his best writing, best beats, and instead of half the songs on the album being good, they all are. It contains some lighter fare such as Keep Ya Head Up, some of his hardest songs, like the title track, and the very personal personal Papa’z Son.
5. A Tribe Called Quest: Midnight Marauders (1993). I saw A Tribe Called Quest play at Lollapalooza ’94, right after this album came out. They caught my attention right away. I went out and bought this album, then everything they put out before and after this. Some Tribe fans might prefer Low End Theory (1991) but I think there are more stellar tracks on Marauders. This is quintessential east coast hip hop, and it’s the best New York City has to offer.
Second tier
6. Dr. Dre: The Chronic (1992). A hugely famous album that put gangster rap on the map. The beats are top-notch and the lyrics are scathing. I love Snoop’s work on this album.
7. Black Eyed Peas: Elephunk (2004). The earlier Bridging the Gap is also a great BEP album, and my first BEP album. And although Elephunk enjoyed much more success and is a bit more radio-friendly (which I usually don’t like), I still have to give it the edge as the best BEP album. Hip hop doesn’t get any more fun than this group. The emergence of Fergi on this album is great, and the back and forth between her and Will.I.Am on tracks like Shut Up really works. But what really make Elephunk a truly great the beats. Just play the title track and crank it up, cause “If it smells like funk it must be us.” My only top 10 album from the 21st century, it’s not hard to tell which decade was the best for hip hop.
8. Wu-Tang Clan: Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) (1993). A great collaborative effort from some brilliant vocalists, including Old Dirty Bastard and Method Man, Wu-Tang was a great contribution to east coast rap.
9. The Fugees: The Score (1996). You gutta love Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean in the same group. Lauryn had the voice, and Wyclef could write with the best. I love the reggae feel and the Sly and Robbie mix of Fu-Gee-La could be the sickest track on the album.
10. Ice-T: O.G. Original Gangster (1991). This probably won’t make most folks top 10, but it has a special meaning for me. When I went to college in 1992, I was a huge metal fan but didn’t get into rap. Then my black suite-mate turned me on to a band called Body Count, Ice-T’s hard core effort. I loved it, and went out and bought O.G. I then proceeded to blast the album to my entire hall at all ours. IT was all over--I was a hip hop fan for life. There are many great songs on this album, such as Bitches and New Jack Hustler, but my favorite track is one of the hardest rap songs every put out: Midnight.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Is conservation alone enough?
A few issues ago, High Country News printed an op-ed by Sarah Gilman called For the Love of Wastelands.
In this piece, Gilman argues that all land has value, and those values would be at risk to development of alternative energy resources, whether solar, wind, or other. She ends by advocating that we look for renewable opportunities in areas such as abandoned mines and alfalfa fields and ends with this paragraph:
Make no mistake about it: conservation alone is no silver bullet. Yes, conservation is often overlooked in favor of supply-side solutions. Yes, huge gains can be made through energy efficiency programs. I fully agree and support energy conservation efforts—in fact, some conservation should be made mandatory. However, we can’t fantasize away energy impacts by thinking all we need to do is conserve more. If we as a nation are really concerned about curbing our use of fossil fuels—a monumentally important direction for us to take—we need to have a serious discussion of where renewable energy projects and their associated infrastructure could be placed.
Let me be clear: conservation should be goal #1. We can instate some mileage/emission standards like Obama is asking. We beef up efficiency standards for new appliances and new houses. This won't be easy politically, but it is possible. Somewhat more problematic is a gas tax and carbon tax. Until we take money out of politics, lobbyists are going to make this politically difficult (not to mention the problem that politicians pushing these important laws will likely face tough times getting reelected). But for the sake of argument, let's assume we can do that too.
Even with the strongest efficiency standards in place, we won't be able to force everyone to conserve. There are still existing houses and buildings that won't meet standards and it's hard/impossible to force existing building owners to meet new standards. There are existing vehicles, and there will always be the freedom to drive to work if you want. I hope we drive prices of fossil fuel based energy through the roof, but there will always be gluttons who can pay those prices. Too much conservation is optional and always will be.
Fossil fuels currently supply 85 percent of the primary energy consumed in the United States. So how in the world can we conserve enough to not need more alternative energy than we have currently?
I agree we should look for places such as abandoned mine sites and alfalfa fields first, and although it’s a great goal, it’s naive to think we can “find ways to develop large-scale renewable energy plants and transmission without sacrificing landscapes.” A HCN issue or two ago there was an informative piece about resisting solar projects in the Mojave Desert. Of course, there are important ecological values there. Now we have a writer telling us there is even ecological value in “wastelands,” and of course Sarah’s right too. This is my point: nearly every single place has value and every single proposal will be in someone’s backyard and will be opposed and probably litigated by someone.
As environmentalists, we need to sit down at the table and play a CONSTRUCTIVE role in deciding where the best places are to build our new renewable energy system. Opposing every alternative energy project is obstruction, not constructive discussion. When environmental interests merely veto every renewable project, it has disastrous consequences for our world: We simply fall back on the same destructive fossil fuels we currently have in place. Resist solar development? More coal gets burnt. Resist a transmission line for wind energy from Wyoming to Vegas? More oil gets burnt.
I don’t like energy impacts any more than anyone else, but if we want to get serious about a clean energy future, we need to accept some impacts. It’s going to be fascinating, a little frustrating and a little encouraging watching America transform to green energy in the next decades.
In this piece, Gilman argues that all land has value, and those values would be at risk to development of alternative energy resources, whether solar, wind, or other. She ends by advocating that we look for renewable opportunities in areas such as abandoned mines and alfalfa fields and ends with this paragraph:
Those are the kinds of alternatives we should exhaust before we move on to industrializing our "empty" spaces. But there's another approach we seldom even discuss: Why not simply use less energy?
Make no mistake about it: conservation alone is no silver bullet. Yes, conservation is often overlooked in favor of supply-side solutions. Yes, huge gains can be made through energy efficiency programs. I fully agree and support energy conservation efforts—in fact, some conservation should be made mandatory. However, we can’t fantasize away energy impacts by thinking all we need to do is conserve more. If we as a nation are really concerned about curbing our use of fossil fuels—a monumentally important direction for us to take—we need to have a serious discussion of where renewable energy projects and their associated infrastructure could be placed.
Let me be clear: conservation should be goal #1. We can instate some mileage/emission standards like Obama is asking. We beef up efficiency standards for new appliances and new houses. This won't be easy politically, but it is possible. Somewhat more problematic is a gas tax and carbon tax. Until we take money out of politics, lobbyists are going to make this politically difficult (not to mention the problem that politicians pushing these important laws will likely face tough times getting reelected). But for the sake of argument, let's assume we can do that too.
Even with the strongest efficiency standards in place, we won't be able to force everyone to conserve. There are still existing houses and buildings that won't meet standards and it's hard/impossible to force existing building owners to meet new standards. There are existing vehicles, and there will always be the freedom to drive to work if you want. I hope we drive prices of fossil fuel based energy through the roof, but there will always be gluttons who can pay those prices. Too much conservation is optional and always will be.
Fossil fuels currently supply 85 percent of the primary energy consumed in the United States. So how in the world can we conserve enough to not need more alternative energy than we have currently?
I agree we should look for places such as abandoned mine sites and alfalfa fields first, and although it’s a great goal, it’s naive to think we can “find ways to develop large-scale renewable energy plants and transmission without sacrificing landscapes.” A HCN issue or two ago there was an informative piece about resisting solar projects in the Mojave Desert. Of course, there are important ecological values there. Now we have a writer telling us there is even ecological value in “wastelands,” and of course Sarah’s right too. This is my point: nearly every single place has value and every single proposal will be in someone’s backyard and will be opposed and probably litigated by someone.
As environmentalists, we need to sit down at the table and play a CONSTRUCTIVE role in deciding where the best places are to build our new renewable energy system. Opposing every alternative energy project is obstruction, not constructive discussion. When environmental interests merely veto every renewable project, it has disastrous consequences for our world: We simply fall back on the same destructive fossil fuels we currently have in place. Resist solar development? More coal gets burnt. Resist a transmission line for wind energy from Wyoming to Vegas? More oil gets burnt.
I don’t like energy impacts any more than anyone else, but if we want to get serious about a clean energy future, we need to accept some impacts. It’s going to be fascinating, a little frustrating and a little encouraging watching America transform to green energy in the next decades.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Has Radical Islam Defeated Moderate Islam?
There’s little doubt that over the last 10 or more years, in the fight within Islam, the extremists are winning. There’s more anti-Christian and anti-Semitic rhetoric coming out of Muslim communities than ever before. Wahhabi Islam (the extreme, ulta-conservative Sunni brand of Islam radiating from Saudi Arabia) interests have spent a lot of money spreading violent Islam to many corners of the globe. They pay for insurgents to travel to Iraq and blow themselves up. They pay for teachers to set up brainwashing schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The more radical Hamas won popular elections in Gaza. Some of this is due to US policies, but I’m not naïve enough to maintain that if we went out of our way to appease the Islamic community that they would stop hating us. So, is the war within Islam over? Have the people and their leaders decided? I sure hope not. I think a good case can be made that the fight is not over and that the underdog moderate Islam has a chance to come back in coming decades.
As with many issues, I look first at the people on the ground that drive such a shift. In the case of people moving in the direction of Wahhabism, it’s not like the people in Islamic communities are actually selecting radical "desert Islam" over more tolerant "urban Islam." It goes back to an important point that Muslims are like everyone else—they want justice, stability, a way to make a living, and education for their children. In many instances they’re choosing between corruption or fairness, school for their boy or no school at all, some hospitals or none at all. Let me explain. Let’s look at Afghanistan. Afghanistan was chaos before the Taliban. No one could leave their houses in Kabul at night because of the brutal clans manning checkpoints all across the city. There were no decent schools, few opportunities to get your son an education of any kind. Officials were corrupt, and if your wealthy neighbor had a dispute with you, he could bribe the police and win the dispute. So it’s not extremely surprising that when the Taliban offered order, justice and schools, some people of Afghanistan moved under the Taliban’s umbrella. They weren’t choosing radical Islam per se, they were choosing between very tangible things that made a difference in their lives. We can see the same thing happening in other areas of the Muslim world, whether Gaza or Iraq. I believe once moderate Islam can offer these things to people in Islamic communities, they will rush under the moderate banner faster then they’re moving to Wahhabism.
Additionally, many times they cannot make a choice at all—there is no choice to make. The groups with power force the people to conform to their brand of Islam. The people might not becoming more radical, just their leaders. When the power shifts and Muslims are free to chose which variety of Islam they want to practice, the people will gladly abandon the Wahhabi ship. Of course, some of this power is gained by radical Islamic recruiters referrencing US policies such as unlawful occupation, indefinite detention and torture of young Mulims, etc. If the US could temper its tone and shift its policies to eliminate these recruiting tools, their power would decrease.
Another reason I have a more optimistic outlook on Wahhabism versus moderate Islam: petrol dollars are providing the resources for Wahhabi Muslims. Whether it’s insurgents in Iraq or brainwashing schools in Pakistan, these are paid for by oil dollars. Oil won’t be as big of a source of power for the extremists in the future. As oil production peaks in the Middle East and countries detach themselves from Saudi’s teat, extremists are going to have to deal with less resources. In a couple decades, their funding source could be substantially reduced. Americans can definitely help here, by instating policies and changing practices that reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
What we’re seeing is a temporary shift that, if we play our cards right and moderate forces within Islam are brave enough to step up, is reversible.
As with many issues, I look first at the people on the ground that drive such a shift. In the case of people moving in the direction of Wahhabism, it’s not like the people in Islamic communities are actually selecting radical "desert Islam" over more tolerant "urban Islam." It goes back to an important point that Muslims are like everyone else—they want justice, stability, a way to make a living, and education for their children. In many instances they’re choosing between corruption or fairness, school for their boy or no school at all, some hospitals or none at all. Let me explain. Let’s look at Afghanistan. Afghanistan was chaos before the Taliban. No one could leave their houses in Kabul at night because of the brutal clans manning checkpoints all across the city. There were no decent schools, few opportunities to get your son an education of any kind. Officials were corrupt, and if your wealthy neighbor had a dispute with you, he could bribe the police and win the dispute. So it’s not extremely surprising that when the Taliban offered order, justice and schools, some people of Afghanistan moved under the Taliban’s umbrella. They weren’t choosing radical Islam per se, they were choosing between very tangible things that made a difference in their lives. We can see the same thing happening in other areas of the Muslim world, whether Gaza or Iraq. I believe once moderate Islam can offer these things to people in Islamic communities, they will rush under the moderate banner faster then they’re moving to Wahhabism.
Additionally, many times they cannot make a choice at all—there is no choice to make. The groups with power force the people to conform to their brand of Islam. The people might not becoming more radical, just their leaders. When the power shifts and Muslims are free to chose which variety of Islam they want to practice, the people will gladly abandon the Wahhabi ship. Of course, some of this power is gained by radical Islamic recruiters referrencing US policies such as unlawful occupation, indefinite detention and torture of young Mulims, etc. If the US could temper its tone and shift its policies to eliminate these recruiting tools, their power would decrease.
Another reason I have a more optimistic outlook on Wahhabism versus moderate Islam: petrol dollars are providing the resources for Wahhabi Muslims. Whether it’s insurgents in Iraq or brainwashing schools in Pakistan, these are paid for by oil dollars. Oil won’t be as big of a source of power for the extremists in the future. As oil production peaks in the Middle East and countries detach themselves from Saudi’s teat, extremists are going to have to deal with less resources. In a couple decades, their funding source could be substantially reduced. Americans can definitely help here, by instating policies and changing practices that reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
What we’re seeing is a temporary shift that, if we play our cards right and moderate forces within Islam are brave enough to step up, is reversible.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Closing Gitmo and coward politicians
The Senate on Wednesday resoundingly rejected an effort to spend $80 million to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and relocate the terrorism suspects, possibly to U.S. prisons: http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_12416311
This is utterly ridiculous. What a bunch of paranoid cowards we have in Congress. There is not ONE logical argument for not housing these guys in the US. All opposition is based on emotion and unjustified fear. What's the big deal? Some alarmists argue that:
They will escape. They will attract like-minded people to that location. They are security risk to communities. Every one of these arguments fails the smell test. These facilities are made specifically to house these kinds of criminals. There are no escapes. Radical people do not flock to these locations (First of all, most of them can’t even get into America in the first place. Second of all, wouldn’t it be stupid for terrorists to congregate? Isn’t their best defense to hide?) These arguments are made out of blind fear and no rational thought.
Our Congressionals need to get some guts and tell their paranoid constituents they're being irrational. Where was all the crazed hysteria when Timothy McVey was brought to Supermax, the high-security prison in Florence, Colorado? What’s the matter, are white terrorists not as dangerous as these brown terrorists? Let’s see, wouldn’t there be even more of chance that an indigenous terrorist would attract like-mined right wing radicals into Florence than Islamic extremists would? Didn't happen.
Supermax already holds some of the most notorious international and domestic terrorists, including would-be airline shoe-bomber Richard Reid, World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Again, where was the squawking when this happened? Could it be that maybe Obama didn’t put these guys there, so the right had no issue with it? But even the Dems are whining now, so what gives?
Communities in Montana as well as Colorado are asking for the detainees. The residents of Florence, Colorado also say bring it on. They know much more about this issue than politicians and people from other communities. Let’s listen to them instead of coward politicians and unaffected interests.
Obama is proposing some changes to the Bush detention policy. Not enough change in my book, but changes nonetheless. Some changes include restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees, a ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel and protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices. Closing Gitmo and moving these guys is part of that change in direction. It puts the old strategy behind us. It turns a page. It takes away an important symbol of dangerous Bush policy and moves more towards working within existing legal structures.
See, here’s another problem Obama and I have with holding these guys in a foreign country. If people support the Bush strategy of detention, then put your money where your mouth is. You want all the “benefits,” but none of the costs. If you support the Bush detention policies, then you should be willing to take on its consequences. People want to put these guys out of sight-out of mind; wash their hands clean and bear none of the responsibility. Maybe that makes them forget the injustice or deal with their guilt easier. I don’t know, but I do feel that we as a country should bear the effects of our decisions.
This is utterly ridiculous. What a bunch of paranoid cowards we have in Congress. There is not ONE logical argument for not housing these guys in the US. All opposition is based on emotion and unjustified fear. What's the big deal? Some alarmists argue that:
They will escape. They will attract like-minded people to that location. They are security risk to communities. Every one of these arguments fails the smell test. These facilities are made specifically to house these kinds of criminals. There are no escapes. Radical people do not flock to these locations (First of all, most of them can’t even get into America in the first place. Second of all, wouldn’t it be stupid for terrorists to congregate? Isn’t their best defense to hide?) These arguments are made out of blind fear and no rational thought.
Our Congressionals need to get some guts and tell their paranoid constituents they're being irrational. Where was all the crazed hysteria when Timothy McVey was brought to Supermax, the high-security prison in Florence, Colorado? What’s the matter, are white terrorists not as dangerous as these brown terrorists? Let’s see, wouldn’t there be even more of chance that an indigenous terrorist would attract like-mined right wing radicals into Florence than Islamic extremists would? Didn't happen.
Supermax already holds some of the most notorious international and domestic terrorists, including would-be airline shoe-bomber Richard Reid, World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Again, where was the squawking when this happened? Could it be that maybe Obama didn’t put these guys there, so the right had no issue with it? But even the Dems are whining now, so what gives?
Communities in Montana as well as Colorado are asking for the detainees. The residents of Florence, Colorado also say bring it on. They know much more about this issue than politicians and people from other communities. Let’s listen to them instead of coward politicians and unaffected interests.
Obama is proposing some changes to the Bush detention policy. Not enough change in my book, but changes nonetheless. Some changes include restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees, a ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel and protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices. Closing Gitmo and moving these guys is part of that change in direction. It puts the old strategy behind us. It turns a page. It takes away an important symbol of dangerous Bush policy and moves more towards working within existing legal structures.
See, here’s another problem Obama and I have with holding these guys in a foreign country. If people support the Bush strategy of detention, then put your money where your mouth is. You want all the “benefits,” but none of the costs. If you support the Bush detention policies, then you should be willing to take on its consequences. People want to put these guys out of sight-out of mind; wash their hands clean and bear none of the responsibility. Maybe that makes them forget the injustice or deal with their guilt easier. I don’t know, but I do feel that we as a country should bear the effects of our decisions.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Bashing Friedman
It seems environmentalists bashing Thomas Friedman is the new fad. If you don’t know Tom, he won Pulitzer Prizes for reporting he did in the Middle East in the 1980s. He now write for the New York Times and is most recently known for his book about globalization, The World is Flat, and his latest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—And How It Can Renew America. I’ve read the later two and catch most his NYT’s op-eds.
I’m frankly a little amazed at how chic it has become for “progressives” to attack Friedman about his environmental writing. It’s no surprise that Tom would come under fire from the left in general, though. He’s not far left on most issues by any stretch of the imagination. He’s adamantly free trade and initially supported the Iraq war. In Hot, Flat, and Crowded, however, he advocates some policy measures that many moderates would view as radical. He calls for market signals, such as a carbon tax, gas tax, and commitments to have renewables make up a certain proportion of the US’ energy. This little op-ed sums up his main points pretty well: Mother Nature’s Dow.
So, let’s take a look at these criticisms of Friedman, shall we? Here’s the first one I saw:
Someone Take Away Thomas Friedman's Computer Before He Types Another Sentence. First of all, I have to concede this is well written and hilarious. Especially witty is his discussion of how Friedman draws a connection between the price of oil and the amount of freedom in oil-producing counties by plotting a couple points. The writer rightly pokes fun at his methods but doesn’t bother disputing the fact that Friedman is right. He starts his rant by complaining about how big Friedman’s house is and how rich his wife is. This argument smacks of idiot right wingers discounting what Al Gore has to say about climate change just because he owns a mansion.
Then there’s this piece by Brian Keane where he bashes Friedman for saying "My motto is change your leaders, not your light bulbs." Friedman is not advocating that people shouldn’t do some simple things to increase energy efficiency; he’s saying that’s not enough. A “revolution” is needed, he states, which entails hard work and pain. I thought environmentalists would agree, but instead they mock him.
Here’s a piece this week that attacks Friedman for originally accepting (then returning) a $75,000 speaker fee. Sure, Friedman didn’t need to take that fee even if wasn’t from a public agency. But then of course we get the commentors who pile on and contend he’s “a fraud” and “no expert on environmental matters.” Of course, when pressed for answers about which assertions in Hot, Flat and Crowded they disagree with, they can’t come up with anything.
Listen, I know Friedman isn’t a revolutionary or anything. He didn’t come up with all these grandiose ideas himself. And yes, he and his family could do a little better themselves as far as limiting environmental impacts go. I have no problem with calling out Friedman, but let’s discuss how his arguments fail, not about this writing style or house. I have no problem with leveling legitimate concerns about Friedman’s positions on other issues. But all that doesn’t invalidate the points he makes in Hot, Flat and Crowded.
Friedman has a large and diverse readership, folks which otherwise might not hear the message. It even helps that he’s not a traditional greenie. Right wing dolts can call Al Gore a "liberal socialist environmentalist," as if that discounts the truth of his message. Those labels just don’t stick to Friedman, which is why he’s a positive addition to our effort.
Time to spend more energy attacking the real problems/perpetrators and leave Friedman alone to spread an important message. It’s hard to argue Friedman isn’t a net benefit to the environmental movement.
I’m frankly a little amazed at how chic it has become for “progressives” to attack Friedman about his environmental writing. It’s no surprise that Tom would come under fire from the left in general, though. He’s not far left on most issues by any stretch of the imagination. He’s adamantly free trade and initially supported the Iraq war. In Hot, Flat, and Crowded, however, he advocates some policy measures that many moderates would view as radical. He calls for market signals, such as a carbon tax, gas tax, and commitments to have renewables make up a certain proportion of the US’ energy. This little op-ed sums up his main points pretty well: Mother Nature’s Dow.
So, let’s take a look at these criticisms of Friedman, shall we? Here’s the first one I saw:
Someone Take Away Thomas Friedman's Computer Before He Types Another Sentence. First of all, I have to concede this is well written and hilarious. Especially witty is his discussion of how Friedman draws a connection between the price of oil and the amount of freedom in oil-producing counties by plotting a couple points. The writer rightly pokes fun at his methods but doesn’t bother disputing the fact that Friedman is right. He starts his rant by complaining about how big Friedman’s house is and how rich his wife is. This argument smacks of idiot right wingers discounting what Al Gore has to say about climate change just because he owns a mansion.
Then there’s this piece by Brian Keane where he bashes Friedman for saying "My motto is change your leaders, not your light bulbs." Friedman is not advocating that people shouldn’t do some simple things to increase energy efficiency; he’s saying that’s not enough. A “revolution” is needed, he states, which entails hard work and pain. I thought environmentalists would agree, but instead they mock him.
Here’s a piece this week that attacks Friedman for originally accepting (then returning) a $75,000 speaker fee. Sure, Friedman didn’t need to take that fee even if wasn’t from a public agency. But then of course we get the commentors who pile on and contend he’s “a fraud” and “no expert on environmental matters.” Of course, when pressed for answers about which assertions in Hot, Flat and Crowded they disagree with, they can’t come up with anything.
Listen, I know Friedman isn’t a revolutionary or anything. He didn’t come up with all these grandiose ideas himself. And yes, he and his family could do a little better themselves as far as limiting environmental impacts go. I have no problem with calling out Friedman, but let’s discuss how his arguments fail, not about this writing style or house. I have no problem with leveling legitimate concerns about Friedman’s positions on other issues. But all that doesn’t invalidate the points he makes in Hot, Flat and Crowded.
Friedman has a large and diverse readership, folks which otherwise might not hear the message. It even helps that he’s not a traditional greenie. Right wing dolts can call Al Gore a "liberal socialist environmentalist," as if that discounts the truth of his message. Those labels just don’t stick to Friedman, which is why he’s a positive addition to our effort.
Time to spend more energy attacking the real problems/perpetrators and leave Friedman alone to spread an important message. It’s hard to argue Friedman isn’t a net benefit to the environmental movement.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Reacting to conservative reaction of EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases
Two years ago, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration ignored the ruling. The Obama administration has different thoughts.
Last Friday the EPA formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.
Conservative columnist Johan Goldberg wrote a piece on Earth Day called “EPA is Choking Democracy.” Check it out, it’s good for howling laugh. This is the same type of drivel pouring from conservative outlets throughout the US. Let’s take a closer look at Mr. Goldberg’s argument, shall we?
It takes no longer than the opening paragraph to encounter gross ignorance: “One of the most important events of our lifetimes may have just transpired. A federal agency has decided that it has the power to regulate everything, including the air you breathe.” Um, Jonah, that happened under the passing of the Clean Air Act and its extension in 1970, which gave the newly created EPA authority to regulate air quality. What do you think the EPA has been doing for the last 40 years? I know it gets your panties in a wad, but regulating the air we breathe is their job. Wow, how “important” it is that EPA has decided to do its job.
Maintaining that this action is an injustice to democracy is absurd. I thought Johan would know about how the judicial system in the United States works, but apparently he doesn’t. The Supreme Court makes rulings all the time, and they are not subject to a democratic process. Let’s see, were we allowed to vote whether black students should be allowed to go to school with whites? Choking democracy! Choking democracy!
Instead of getting mad at the EPA and Democrats, maybe Mr. Goldberg should rant about the Supreme Court, which just happens to be the most conservative court in our lifetimes. Maybe he should argue that the court made the wrong decision instead of getting mad at the government for following that ruling. Say, after the first black student was allowed in a white school in the south, was Jonah attacking the school that let him in?
Mr. Goldberg apparently thinks government agencies are also subject to a democratic process: “But there's still something troubling about an institution so immune to democratic control.” What?!? You mean agencies are supposed to ask us citizens what they want them to do? Hmm. I don’t remember being asked by the Bureau of Land Management whether to open the Roan Plateau to drilling. I didn’t remember the EPA asking Americans in 2008 what we thought about allowing California to establish stricter emission standards than the national standards. Again, Jonah, go back to Jr. High and study US government and tell me how agencies are not “immune to democratic control.”
Jonah mentions that Congress might take action, not the agency. This supposedly makes this an even worse violation of democracy. Um, if our elected legislative officials making laws isn’t democratic, what exactly is? Mr. Goldberg must think that not only do we get to vote on court cases, we get to vote on laws too! Wow. I don’t remember being asked about the war in Iraq. I must have missed that election.
This is exactly how our government was set up to work. There is no gross injustice here. You just don’t like the court’s opinion. I know with this Supreme Court you’re not used to that. Now you know what it feels like. I feel SOOOOO sorry for you, chief. I thought you conservatives were all about the constitution and rule of law and stuff. Guess that only applies when the law rules in your favor. Shocking.
Last Friday the EPA formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.
Conservative columnist Johan Goldberg wrote a piece on Earth Day called “EPA is Choking Democracy.” Check it out, it’s good for howling laugh. This is the same type of drivel pouring from conservative outlets throughout the US. Let’s take a closer look at Mr. Goldberg’s argument, shall we?
It takes no longer than the opening paragraph to encounter gross ignorance: “One of the most important events of our lifetimes may have just transpired. A federal agency has decided that it has the power to regulate everything, including the air you breathe.” Um, Jonah, that happened under the passing of the Clean Air Act and its extension in 1970, which gave the newly created EPA authority to regulate air quality. What do you think the EPA has been doing for the last 40 years? I know it gets your panties in a wad, but regulating the air we breathe is their job. Wow, how “important” it is that EPA has decided to do its job.
Maintaining that this action is an injustice to democracy is absurd. I thought Johan would know about how the judicial system in the United States works, but apparently he doesn’t. The Supreme Court makes rulings all the time, and they are not subject to a democratic process. Let’s see, were we allowed to vote whether black students should be allowed to go to school with whites? Choking democracy! Choking democracy!
Instead of getting mad at the EPA and Democrats, maybe Mr. Goldberg should rant about the Supreme Court, which just happens to be the most conservative court in our lifetimes. Maybe he should argue that the court made the wrong decision instead of getting mad at the government for following that ruling. Say, after the first black student was allowed in a white school in the south, was Jonah attacking the school that let him in?
Mr. Goldberg apparently thinks government agencies are also subject to a democratic process: “But there's still something troubling about an institution so immune to democratic control.” What?!? You mean agencies are supposed to ask us citizens what they want them to do? Hmm. I don’t remember being asked by the Bureau of Land Management whether to open the Roan Plateau to drilling. I didn’t remember the EPA asking Americans in 2008 what we thought about allowing California to establish stricter emission standards than the national standards. Again, Jonah, go back to Jr. High and study US government and tell me how agencies are not “immune to democratic control.”
Jonah mentions that Congress might take action, not the agency. This supposedly makes this an even worse violation of democracy. Um, if our elected legislative officials making laws isn’t democratic, what exactly is? Mr. Goldberg must think that not only do we get to vote on court cases, we get to vote on laws too! Wow. I don’t remember being asked about the war in Iraq. I must have missed that election.
This is exactly how our government was set up to work. There is no gross injustice here. You just don’t like the court’s opinion. I know with this Supreme Court you’re not used to that. Now you know what it feels like. I feel SOOOOO sorry for you, chief. I thought you conservatives were all about the constitution and rule of law and stuff. Guess that only applies when the law rules in your favor. Shocking.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Somali Piracy
As you must all know by now, a US vessel carrying food aid to Mombasa was high jacked by Somali pirates last week. The pirates have Captain Phillips hostage. The first thing most people are wondering is how in the hell there are pirates operating in 2009.
Well, half of the answer is that it’s just too expensive to have dozens of Navy vessels patrolling the Indian Ocean east of Somalia. It’s a vast area so protecting it all is not an option. We’re talking tens to hundreds of millions dollars a day to provide secure corridors for every US vessel. Ships are covered by insurance; a few million isn't much for them to pay. So, I don’t want to make light of this, but it’s not a big enough deal for shipping companies or the US government to pay what would be massive long-term costs. The other half of the answer is that Somalis are adept seamen and gunmen, and they have very few other options. Piracy is also common in Asian waters, as documented by National Geographic.
An article from Johann Hari called “You Are Being Lied to About Pirates” and “Toxic scandal in Somalia gave birth to new piracy” from Nomad.net describe some of the root causes at work here. European ships have been dumping toxic waste and fishing in Somali waters since 2005. As a result, Somalis formed an informal coast guard to patrol their waters and exact a “tax” on foreign vessels. I’m not trying to excuse this behaviour, just understand it.
The keyboard pundits are hammering on Obama for having a “weak” response. These chest thumpers think we should just blow every Somali boat out of the water. I have nothing wrong with enforcement, but more Somalis are surely ready to take their place. I see the point about deterring pirates, but in Somalia, most the other options for making a few bucks could result in death also. Killing these pirates is well and good, but the problem won’t go away until Somalia has a stable government and its people have other means of making a buck. (Unfortunately, how in the hell we facilitate a stable government in Somalia is a problem we haven’t come close to figuring out yet).
Friday the French Navy attacked the pirates and tried to rescue their hostage. The result was two dead pirates and one dead hostage. So, all these John Wayne types who think negotiating is a “joke” and killing a few pirates is the only solution: if the US Navy were to take your approach to this situation and (God forbid) have the same end result, do you have the balls to tell Captain Phillips’ family that in your vast expertise, you thought this was the right thing to do?
Let’s trust the Navy and FBI on this one. The pirates are surrounded, out of gas, and in over their heads. The vessel safely made it to Mombasa. No Americans have died yet. Seems things are going reasonably well for the situation. The best solution here is to give the pirates a jerry can of petrol, some food, and safe passage for the captain. Hang in there Captain Phillips, you’re in our thoughts.
UPDATE:
It seems literally as I was writing this rant, Captain Phillips was freed. Details are still scetchy, but it seems three Navy SEAL snipers put three bullets in the heads of three pirates. Phillips was rescued. The patient approach prevailed.
Well, half of the answer is that it’s just too expensive to have dozens of Navy vessels patrolling the Indian Ocean east of Somalia. It’s a vast area so protecting it all is not an option. We’re talking tens to hundreds of millions dollars a day to provide secure corridors for every US vessel. Ships are covered by insurance; a few million isn't much for them to pay. So, I don’t want to make light of this, but it’s not a big enough deal for shipping companies or the US government to pay what would be massive long-term costs. The other half of the answer is that Somalis are adept seamen and gunmen, and they have very few other options. Piracy is also common in Asian waters, as documented by National Geographic.
An article from Johann Hari called “You Are Being Lied to About Pirates” and “Toxic scandal in Somalia gave birth to new piracy” from Nomad.net describe some of the root causes at work here. European ships have been dumping toxic waste and fishing in Somali waters since 2005. As a result, Somalis formed an informal coast guard to patrol their waters and exact a “tax” on foreign vessels. I’m not trying to excuse this behaviour, just understand it.
The keyboard pundits are hammering on Obama for having a “weak” response. These chest thumpers think we should just blow every Somali boat out of the water. I have nothing wrong with enforcement, but more Somalis are surely ready to take their place. I see the point about deterring pirates, but in Somalia, most the other options for making a few bucks could result in death also. Killing these pirates is well and good, but the problem won’t go away until Somalia has a stable government and its people have other means of making a buck. (Unfortunately, how in the hell we facilitate a stable government in Somalia is a problem we haven’t come close to figuring out yet).
Friday the French Navy attacked the pirates and tried to rescue their hostage. The result was two dead pirates and one dead hostage. So, all these John Wayne types who think negotiating is a “joke” and killing a few pirates is the only solution: if the US Navy were to take your approach to this situation and (God forbid) have the same end result, do you have the balls to tell Captain Phillips’ family that in your vast expertise, you thought this was the right thing to do?
Let’s trust the Navy and FBI on this one. The pirates are surrounded, out of gas, and in over their heads. The vessel safely made it to Mombasa. No Americans have died yet. Seems things are going reasonably well for the situation. The best solution here is to give the pirates a jerry can of petrol, some food, and safe passage for the captain. Hang in there Captain Phillips, you’re in our thoughts.
UPDATE:
It seems literally as I was writing this rant, Captain Phillips was freed. Details are still scetchy, but it seems three Navy SEAL snipers put three bullets in the heads of three pirates. Phillips was rescued. The patient approach prevailed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
