After the "War on the Poor" event David and I attended Tuesday morning, we caught Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality for a quick interview about their campaign.
The presentation this morning focused on politicians whom Innis accuses of being engaged in a "war on the poor" -- all of which, at this point in the roll-out, are Democrats. The "objective criteria" for making the list, according to the speakers, was how they voted on 16 pieces of legislation this year. Curiously, the "correct" vote on every bill was either explicit support for the fossil-fuels industry or against removal of any of its tax breaks and subsidies. Voting for a bill like the 2007 energy bill -- which, among other things, increased automobile fuel efficiency standards in order to bring down costs at the pump for consumers -- was a no-no. Voting for the bill to curb energy speculation was also a negative, since according to their literature it "does nothing to increase new sources of energy." The bill to renew tax credits for renewable energy? Well, the tax credits are "common sense," but the bill would have removed oil industry tax breaks, so ... no.
"The bills that we support are bills that take a comprehensive approach -- that support renewables, support energy conservation, but don't pit fossil fuels versus renewables," Innis told Grist. "For us to get to the future, a renewable future, that many of us want to get to, there's going to have to be a bridge, and that bridge is good old-fashioned fossil fuels."
Each speaker listed the many acceptable sources of energy -- curiously, in the exact same order: clean coal, natural gas, oil, oil shale, nuclear, renewables, and efficiency. They don't want to "pit, artificially, so-called bad energies against good energies. They're all good energies," said Innis. Bills solely supporting renewable energy or efficiency "were not on our priority list," he said.
Asked about the recent report from the Bush administration Energy Information Administration, which says increased production from more drilling is at least 10 years out and would lower gas prices by two or three cents a gallon at most, Innis responded that "there are many reports out there that speculate on the impact that offshore drilling is going to have." He cited the drop in oil prices that followed Bush's (symbolic) removal of the federal offshore drilling moratorium as evidence that there will be an immediate "psychological impact" of support for drilling.
As for the impacts of climate change -- which will hit poor communities the hardest -- says Innis, "We don't get into the debate ... and first of all, we do recognize that there is a debate on the question of global warming." Later he said that "speculative" concerns over "so-called global warming" should not distract attention from the immediate plight of the poor -- who are presumably crying out for some psychological impacts.
EU pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Russ Posted 7:59 pm
02 Sep 2008
Here I bet the enemy was able to get good value on the cheap. Innis and crew were well trained and hit all their points.
Let's recap:
-It's a class war from above, and all the aggressors are Democrats. (Standard totalitarian ploy - accuse your opponent of exactly what you're doing.)
-The measure is votes on 16 bills, and it's the same vote in each case for or against fossil fuels.
-Standard Luntz talking points: each bill has to "increase new sources of energy"; we need a "comprehensive approach".
-Robotic rote recital of the bunker litany: "clean coal" [anodyne misdirection], natural gas and oil [oldies but goodies], oil shale [the new frontier of boondoggling and rape and megaprofits for a handful], nukes, with renewables and efficiency tossed in at the end for show.
-GOP talking points: we shouldn't pit "bad energy vs. good energy"; what's needed is the "psychological impact".
Regarding this "psychological impact", it's a serious Republican ploy. Gramm's railing against "whiners" and the "mental recession" was just a clumsy iteration of it.
But compare this David Brooks piece. (He's talking about Chinese earthquake survivors.)
These were weird, unnerving interviews, and I don't pretend to understand what's going on in the minds of people who have suffered such blows and remained so optimistic. All I can imagine is that the history of this province has given these people a stripped-down, pragmatic mentality: Move on or go crazy. Don't dwell. Look to the positive. Fix what needs fixing. Work together.
I don't know if it's emotionally sustainable or even healthy, but it raises at least one interesting question. When you compare these people to the emotional Sturm und Drang over lesser things on reality TV, you do wonder if we Americans are a nation of whiners.
Yeah - just like Gramm saying it's an mental recession. The implication is unmistakable - things seem difficult for you [non-rich] Americans? You think you have troubles? Well, look at these brave, stoic Chinese. You could learn a thing or two from them.
Whatever happens [and of course in right-wing propaganda any deleterious result of class war from above is recast as a kind of "natural" process], "Move on or go crazy. Don't dwell. Look to the positive. Fix what needs fixing. Work together."
-Then of course we have the obligatory reference to the non-existent climate change "debate".
Never mind that the Bush admin itself (in its U.S. Climate Change Science Program) has finally conceded the science.
This is the best idiot parroting that money can buy. Could Innis pass an elementary quiz on any of the subjects he's talking about? Of course not.
But who knows - in the same way the Reps have been able to get so many hillbillies to vote for them vs. their own interests, perhaps these whores might be able to do the same for some inner-city poor:
who are presumably crying out for some psychological impacts.
Unfortunately, all too many of the white rural poor seem to be too stupid to do anything but cry out for these. We'll see about the minority poor.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:14 pm
02 Sep 2008
The veil is finally being drawn from peoples' faces.
Global Warming is an attempt by big city Liberals like Nancy Pelosi to keep their vineyards and make us working stiffs pay for it.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 8:24 am
04 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 8:28 am
04 Sep 2008
Permalink