This Fall there will be an important Energy Bill up for vote by Congress, a Bill that will take relatively aggressive steps towards reducing our reliance on foreign oil and foreign governments while increasing our dependence on renewable energy, such as wind power and solar power. Please sign the petition to help give your member of Congress a little incentive to pass the more aggressive version of the Energy Bill legislation, undiluted by the auto or the oil industry and their lobbyists. The following post was written by Lorna Li over at her blog. Via Chris Abraham Online and Memes.org.

Why CAFE and RES Matter for 2007 New Energy Bill

Currently, Congress is debating, behind closed doors, the adoption of 2 provisions to the 2007 Energy Bill that can greatly impact our ability to make America more energy independent, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce pollution, save consumers money, create jobs and spark economic growth.

The first is the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) Standard of 35 mpg for cars and trucks by 2020. The second is the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which calls for 15% of the nation’s electricity to be generated by renewable resources by 2020.

Why support the Renewable Electricity Standard?According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, renewable energy solutions are both sustainable environmentally and economically. The RES provision has the potential to jump-start new clean energy economy and create tens of thousands of new, good-paying jobs in things like wind and solar manufacturing and installation. For this reason, it has the strong support of the United Steelworkers.

RES will create thousands of megawatts of new clean renewable electricity generation, decreasing the amount of natural gas we use—lowering prices for consumers on their home heating bills and also benefiting industrial users.

Furthermore, RES is doable – two dozen states that have already put their own Renewable Electricity Standard into place. In fact, many states have moved to establish standards of 30 percent or more—demonstrating that the 15 percent plan proposed in this bill is an achievable compromise that all states can meet.

Why is supporting the 35 mpg CAFE standard important?

Supporting the 35 mpg CAFE standard will help us curb our addition to a fossil-fuel based source that is increasingly expensive, causes pollution, and is also from highly volatile areas such as the Persian Gulf. This dependence is both unstable and unsustainable.

Furthermore, improving CAFE standards to 35 mpg by 2020 – 13 years from now – will give us better gas mileage, thus, more bang for the buck. This way we can keep more money in our wallets, drive cleaner cars, and thus become less dependent on war and pollution causing oil.

According to the UCS study on Clean Vehicles and Fuel Economy, far from destroying auto jobs, CAFE would create 22,300 jobs in the auto industry alone by 2020—and a total of 170,800 jobs by 2020. The CAFE provision would also save consumers nearly $25 billion at the pump in 2020, according to UCS.

Auto-Industry Lies – Et Tu Toyota?

The Big Three automakers and Toyota are lobbying to kill the Senate version and replace it with a loophole-laden compromise called the Hill-Terry bill that calls for 32 to 35 m.p.g. by 2022. Rather than innovate their fleets to become more fuel efficient, they would rather spend $ millions in advertising to convince the public that attaining the 35 mpg standard is bad for consumers and the environment, and that CAFE kills.

While the auto industry has argued for years that fuel-efficiency would compromise public safety due to the need to build smaller, lighter vehicles, according to an October 2007 article in Scientific American, new engine and transmission technologies could enable manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency without significantly cutting vehicle weights.

In spite of the fact that Toyota currently has the technology to make cars that achieve 55 mpg, Toyota’s refusal to step up to the plate and support the 35 mpg CAFE standard has evoked the wrath of environmentalist groups like the NRDC who now question “How Green is Toyota?” That the maker of the Prius could support the Hill-Terry compromise, which according to UCS, would actually cause us to use 700,000 more barrels each day, feels like sheer betrayal.

Is the auto industry genuinely concerned about the economic well-being of American consumers and our ability to get around as cheaply as possible? Hmmm.

In 1922, General Motors dismantled mass transit across the U.S., bought up trolley systems through its subsidiary National City lines, gutted them and tore up all the tracks. GM joined tire manufacturers, construction companies, and oil companies to lobby for Congress for development of a national highway system, which has defined urban development over the last 90 years. It helped that GM’s president Charles Wilson became secretary of defense and Frances DuPont became the federal highway administrator. Thus America became a oil-addicted, nation of drivers.

With Bush and his Big Oil cohorts in power threatening veto, ordinary Americans may be up for another round of seriously getting screwed. Therefore, it’s up to us to take action and DEMAND a clean, energy future NOW.

Take Action and Support a Strong, Clean Energy Bill for 2007

Instead of making the richest companies in the world richer, this energy bill will benefit consumers and working Americans, make us less dependent on foreign oil and better global citizens. Here are simple actions you can take to lobby Congress for a cleaner, greener future:

1. THIS IS IMPORTANT! Sign this petition and pass it on: Energy Bill 2007
2. Meet other clean energy activists online: Energy Bill 2007 Group on Facebook
3. Tell Toyota, “Shame On You” and get your friends to tell Toyota to support 35 mpg now.

By lobbying Congress to adopt strong energy efficiency measures in the 2007 Energy Bill, we can lower emissions and use less energy in the years to come —saving governments, businesses, schools, and consumers money. Energy efficiency is an energy resource just like anything else and is much cheaper than even coal-fired power generation. We must look to energy efficiency as another solution for our energy needs, while at the same time ramping up the amount of electricity we get from renewables. This is our only way we can guarantee a clean, green future for ourselves and future generations.

Technorati Tags: new energy bill, energy bill 2007, cafe, cafe standard, corporate average fuel economy, renewable electricity standard, res, hill-terry, clean tech, fuel efficiency, fuel economy, global warming

Michael Bernstein popped me an IM after reading my article, The Culture of “Acting White” Anti-Intellectualism Will Kill America, with a link to Cosby, Race and Escaping The Downside, which reveals America’s dirty secret, “in America, being poor, ignorant, desperate and unable to escape your situation has absolutely nothing to do with the color of your skin. It is universal.”

Listen to “Conservative thinker Dinesh D’Souza has never been one to shy away from controversy and his new book is no less provocative. In ‘The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11,’ D’Souza maintains that liberals unwittingly provoke and help terrorists. He explained his views in a Jan. 23 Commonwealth Club of California speech.” Via Word for Word [Listen]

“Chuck Schumer is complaining that the Democratic Party can’t explain what they stand for to the American people.” The biggest rift in my estimation is that a great many Democrats don’t identify with being American. How can you attract anyone if you’re not even attractive, to say nothing of being downright embarrassed about being American? Via Right Wing News

“From Overheard in New York: Woman holding baby: Excuse me, what did you say? Woman with clipboard: I asked you if you would like to join the Democractic Party. Woman holding baby: No, I’m not poor! —Washington Square Park” Via The Club for Growth Blog

Mike Signer lives an exemplary life. I was not surprised when he published an article on American Exemplarism, A City on a Hill, “Exemplarism would value both strength and international prestige equally, seeing them not as mutually exclusive but rather as mutually reinforcing.”

“America’s economic, political, and military strength, when deployed wisely, enhances our prestige around the world; that prestige, in turn, allows us to expand our influence and power by engendering the willing followership of other countries.”

Exemplarism places “the United States in a community, but as its leader.” America has a tradition of exceptionalism, but Signer sees modern American exceptionalism as vulgar, framing “the United States as an exception to the world, rather than as an exceptional–meaning excellent–nation within it” which “undermines our ability to translate our uniqueness into global leadership.”

I am still reading the article, but I wanted to share it now because I will surely need to read it a couple times before I grab Mike for a couple beers and a heady conversation about the article.

Well worth registering for free to Democracy A Journal of Ideas in order to read the full article.

Diane’s article, Linda Hirshman needs a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, reminded me of the article I read on the 9th, Is this really feminism? I believe that feminism is the empowerment of women in a patriarchal system with the goal of achieving a quality of choice at least equal to that of men.

A woman’s choices should include whatever she wants, including the guilt-free choice to become a mom and stay at home with her children; or, alternately, become partner, dean, president, or laureate.

If it is indeed her choice (and not the result of coercion) a woman should not feel shame (or be made to feel ashamed) for making any choice. This choice should not be multiple choice: doctor, lawyer, scholar, politician, or writer. This freedom of choice, this choice feminism, need to allow, without judgement, “dropping out” to become a “full-time mother.”

I don’t know is this bodes well with Linda Hirshman in either Homeward Bound or her new book, Get to Work : A Manifesto for Women of the World:

“What do you need to live a good life in the real world? Among other things, a real job-and changing diapers isn’t one. “Opting out” is a trade-off that is almost guaranteed to blow up in your face, sooner or later. Linda Hirshman’s Get to Work-a clarion call for stay-at-home moms to blast out of the house-is a rocket-propelled grenade aimed directly at the mommy wars, and offers a bold plan for all women to find and be able to pay for the kinds of satisfying lives that a grown-up should want to lead.”

I studied feminist theory in college (Marxist-feminism, French feminism, Postmodern Feminism, Deconstructionism) and the objective was to dismantle the master’s house without the master’s tools. Yes, the goal was to reduce the master’s house to rubble, but what I fear has been built in its place looks much the same.

As far as I could tell, the original goal of feminism was to redefine a woman’s role in society from being a man’s possession (from daughter to wife) to being an equal to men. Feminism was about tearing off the patriarchal yoke. Unfortunately, if I am reading it right, Linda Hirshman believes that one yoke should be replaced by another: feminist expectations.

In other words, as a woman, If you have the potential to rule the world and usurp men, it is your responsibility above all else so to do. Until then, the struggle must continue unabated.

This isn’t about attaining choice, this is about attaining control.

One technique of control is manipulation and Linda Hirshman and her book, Get to Work, is using shame, judgement, and disappointment in order to make empowered, first-class, wealthy, affluent, elite, a-type, pedigreed women feel bad about themselves and their choices if their choices don’t include “living up to your full potential” as defined by becoming partner, dean, president, or laureate.

And that is not choice, that is obligation: exchanging one yoke for another; one societal expectation for another.

Mark sent this essay to me from the African bush, “Biodiesel is not a solution. It is politics, it is spin, it is agribusiness profits, it is a hobby.”

Biodiesel is not a solution. It is politics, it is spin, it is agribusiness profits, it is a hobby.
By Mark Harrison

Soy and canola and oil palm are food, they are not fuel. Do you really want humans to be competing with cars for their food source?

A human consumes on average 20 liters of edible oil a year. 20 liters – around five and a quarter gallons. Per year. How long does it take your car to consume five gallons of fuel? Half a day?

Worldwide, we are consuming around 85 million barrels of petroleum every day – that’s 13.5 billion liters per day. The entire human population only eats around 328 million liters of food oil a day. So, let’s compare: 13,500 million liters of fuel oil consumed every day vs. 328 million liters of food oil consumed every day. That’s 41 times more fuel oil than food oil consumed.

What makes biodiesel proponents think that biodiesel is an alternative to petroleum? How could we possibly increase food oil production by 41 times? Cut down the rest of the mangrove swamps for oil palm plantations? Raze the rest of the rain forest for soy bean fields? Just to run the world on B10 (10% biodiesel, 90% petroleum diesel – hardly an end to petroleum dependency) we’d have to increase plant oil production by a factor of four. That alone would require destroying the rest of our suffering ecosystem, and that type of food oil consumption would likely raise food prices to the point where the majority of the world’s population living on just a few dollars a day would starve to death – the world’s poor simply can’t compete with our cars.

So, the world running on 10% biodiesel = ecological disaster and mass starvation. Not an optimal solution. We’re still dependent on petroleum, but manage to bury the ecosystem and starve billions of people.

No, biodiesel is not a solution. It’s something for a small group of hobbyists. It is something for politicians to make hay off of. It is something for fools and people who can’t do simple math to fall for.

What is the solution – solar? Wind? Nukes? I can’t say, but it is certainly not dreaming that we can farm our way out of this, and the solution is certainly not in wasting our time and resources pursuing this dead end.

“Neoconservatism was a movement of onetime liberals enraged at the wave of violence and disorder that overtook the cities in the 1960s.” Via Washington Post

“In the bitingly funny, razor-sharp I Love You, Nice to Meet You, platonic friends Kevin Bleyer (“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart???) and Lori Gottlieb give the no-holds-barred low-down on coupling up from the both the male and female points of view. Or as they like to put it, “Twice the perspective, half the insight??? (after all, what do they know – they’re still single).”

“Like romance anthropologists, Lori and Kevin deconstruct every key moment in the lifecycle of a relationship, from what the fake purse-grab really means when the check comes (how hard is it to find your wallet in a purse the size of doughnut?) to fighting etiquette (Is all fair when love is war?) to who gets “home couch advantage??? in couples therapy. Based on stories from their own dating experiences (funny for you, mortifying for them), I Love You, Nice to Meet You is a hilarious and eye-opening collection of “anecdates??? from a guy and a girl who just want to find the one but – lucky for you – haven’t.”

What People are Saying about I Love You, Nice to Meet You : A Guy and a Girl Give the Lowdown on Coupling Up

“The best new funny book about dating on planet Earth, perhaps in the entire universe, and certainly in the Milky Way. Even Tolstoy and God together couldn’t write something as funny and cool and weird and wonderful as this.”
—Molly Jong-Fast, author of Normal Girl and The Sex Doctors in the Basement

“I Love You, Nice to Meet You is funny, affecting, blunt and useful. Kevin and Lori are generous to old flames (well, most of them) and unsparing on themselves. This book may or may not help you find true happiness. But it will give you good, sound advice about what not to talk about over that first cup of coffee, or what items that are best not displayed in your medicine cabinet. Their alternating interpretations make us laugh at the gaffes we have all committed in hope of love. But they still hold out hope for love.”
—Scott Simon, host of NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday

“For lonely urban singles, here–finally–is a warm, witty companion to crawl into bed at night with. The bad news is it’s a book. The good news is, “I Love You, Nice to Meet You” is very funny, only costs a low one-time fee, and won’t call you regularly at 1 a.m. ‘just to say hi’ (I forget in which chapter, but it’s covered). Shake up a cosmo for one and enjoy.”
—Sandra Tsing Loh, author of A Year in Van Nuys“The funniest book about dating to date. Gottlieb and Bleyer guide us through the twists and turning points in every relationship, providing insight, fresh perspectives, personal anecdotes and hearty laughs along the way. Read it in one big gulp, or savor slowly, bite by bite.”
—Valerie Frankel, author of Hex and the Single Girl and The Girlfriend Curse

“It’s amazing that this is a funny book because this is one exhaustingly detailed compendium of everything that could ever go wrong in every stage a love relationship. At long last, you, the book buying public, will never again have to actually participate in this barbaric uncivilized ritual to become the grizzled cynical veteran of bad love you were destined to be. For this we all owe Kevin Bleyer and Lori Gottlieb a debt of gratitude.”
—Merrill Markoe, original head writer of The Late Show with David Letterman and author of It’s My F—ing Birthday: A Novel.

“Sure, chivalry died. But it got replaced by something much funnier–and luckily Lori Gottlieb and Kevin Bleyer are here to describe it. In dueling essays, the authors spar, match wits, and reveal startling truths about contemporary relationships.Whether you’re searching for the soulmate you have yet to meet, or getting increasingly irritated at the one you found already, this book provides the antidote: pure laughter.”
—Jenny Lyn Bader, co-author He Meant, She Meant: The Definitive Male-Female Dictionary

Reviews of I Love You, Nice to Meet You : A Guy and a Girl Give the Lowdown on Coupling Up

“Knowing that bad dates make good stories, Gottlieb (Stick Figure: A Diary of My Former Self) and Bleyer, a writer for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, share a collection of “anecdates” in this he-said she-said guide to “coupling up” that has not infrequent flashes of true hilarity—a rarity among the ever swelling ranks of humorous dating guides. The authors, good friends who have never been an item (“not now, not then”), provide individual interpretations on the standard fare of relationship topics, but cleverly; chapter titles include “Venue Ask Her Out – Is ‘location, location, location’ the key to getting a second date?” and “I’ll Show You Mine, If You Show Me How – Is there any civilized way to get naked with a new lover?” Insights such as “If you cry about anything less than the death of a mother…you’re doomed,” “Oprah is pornography for women” and “a week of uninterrupted physical presence isn’t a sign of love. It’s a stakeout,” make Gottlieb and Bleyer’s stiff shots of wisdom go down more like a fizzy summertime cocktail, helping to make the dating game, if not always fun, at least fun to read about.”
—Publishers Weekly

“A major Republican talking point for ’06 seems to be what the Democrats might do if they take over the House.” Via Washington Post

I don’t believe the 2+2=5 campaign is effective. “it suffers from too much subtlety, too much ivory tower, and too much snobbery. It is passive-aggressive and frustrating — way too much nudge nudge, wink wink.”

That said, here is the history of rhetorical use of 2+2=5 Via The Corner. And here is a preemptive response.

“Democratic Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia in the House and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate,” I wonder if you have ever considered the fact that legislation always makes things more expensive. Net Neutrality is 1984 doublespeak!

Oh, and laws make lawyers rich, which always costs someone lots of money.

Since the founding documents from our founding fathers, there are very few legislations that make anything but more complex, more regulated, and more expensive.

Even if you are using the GNU Free Software definition of free, “a matter of liberty, not price . . .’free’ as in ‘free speech,’ not as in ‘free beer’”to define all the freedoms we will get from all the government oversight and legislation that Net Neutrality will offer, I daresay that liberty means the following: “autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence,” “personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression,” “liberty, or freedom, is a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority,” and “political independence; freedom of choice.” All of these definitions of liberty suggest freedom from Net Neutrality legislation, Internet regulation, and undue oversight and enforcement of the World Wide Web.

Come on, it’s only logical! At least give me that much!

Via Slashdot

Says a journalist in an actual missive, “I was talking with a retired US general the other day…”

What follows is an actual conversation from an undisclosed location between an unnamed journalist and an unnamed retired general:

“What the fuck! This war in Iraq is a special forces war,” says a retired general, “we can prosecute this whole war with a small force of special forces operatives. A big occupying army does absolutely nothing to help us move ahead. It just presents a huge fucking target, militarily and politically, and pisses off the locals. Within the context of winning the war in Iraq, there is no reason to have any non-special forces troops there.”

So the journalist asks, “Uh, why are they there then?”

“Well,” replies the retired general, “because it scares the Iranians, and because we can just storm across the border, ready to go, all pumped and primed from the experience in Iraq.”

And the journalist asks, “why do we want to invade Iran?”

“Well,” says the retired general, “partly because we, like everyone else in the world, don’t want Iran to have The Bomb. But more because we don’t want China having a nice secure oil source for their 9% growth rate. We want them to know we can choke them if they get unruly – it’s not the execution of a threat that is powerful, it’s your adversary’s knowledge that you could that is powerful.”

“And even moreso,” adds the retired general, “we want Iran to just stop even think about opening a Euro-based oil bourse. If oil started being traded in Euros, demand for the Dollar would plummet and along with that, its value, and the US would be fucked since it depends on borrowing to survive. That is the attack that would kill us – no dirty nuke or anthrax would do more than inconvenience us a bit. A Euro oil bourse would sink the US like a tourniquet to the neck.”

“Frankly,” concludes the retired general, “those two reasons – Chinese wrapping up oil contracts, and the threat of a Euro-based oil bourse were the real reasons we were in such a rush to invade Iraq. With the war, all the Chinese contracts disappeared, and the potential for a Euro oil bourse evaporated.”

“CIA & NSA goons can arrest anybody, anywhere, for no reason; spies who leak will pay, journalists too” translates to “law enforcement officials have finally been granted the ability to enforce anti-terrorism laws to protect and serve America and Americans in this time of war and terrorism to protect America, our Homeland.” Via Sploid.

Why Slate thinks “Republicans are screwed.” Via Slate

“Wes Pruden thinks the Democrats are about to do what anybody with any sense always knew they would: flank the GOP on illegal migration” Suckers! Via the Daily Pundit and Wes Pruden

“The CIA leaker Gave $7,500 to Democrats in 2004.” Via Hugh Hewitt.

Whenever the Democrats start talking all high and mighty and wag their fingers at Republicans and suggest that their way is innately transparent and the gold standard of “the high road” I like to remind my gentle readers that both the DNC and GOP have their own political operations going, most of which have plausible deniability.

Via Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices on The New York Times, Daily Dish.

Making fun of Democrats, spoofing Democrats, punking Democrats, teasing Democrats, shaming Democrats, insulting Democrats, dissing Democrats, and fooling Democrats on April Fools Day just isn’t sporting. Shooting fish in a barrel just isn’t in good form.