Global temperature this year is the hottest ever recorded. The United States is suffering its worst oil spill ever. Still, the Democratic Party, which controls the White House and both houses of Congress, can’t summon the wherewithal to create law to deal with the climate and energy crisis.
Barack Obama hasn’t done much of anything to push for the legislation’s passage. Democrats in both houses of Congress have spent the last year and a half breaking promises, crafting bills that would do more to channel public money to oil and coal companies than to create energy reform.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid now says that he’ll stop working on climate legislation, and just pass a little bill that might tweak liability caps for offshore drilling… unless the Republicans object too much, of course, in which case Reid will abandon that effort too.
Reid says that he isn’t really giving up completely on the effort to pass climate legislation. He says he’ll try again, with a completely new bill in the autumn… two months before Election Day… as he focuses on his campaign to keep his job.
Rumors are that, while the new bill won’t have a carbon tax, or cap-and-trade provisions, or anything else to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are actually causing global warming, it might include a half-million grant program to provide Americans with parasols that they could use to protect themselves from the hot sun as they walk from their front doors to their sport utility vehicles… or… not.
Republicans are poised to make significant gains in both houses of Congress this November. That makes this year the last chance for climate legislation for probably at least another decade. Our nation has been waiting for climate legislation since the 1980s.
We can’t afford another generation of inaction. The biosphere is cooking. But then, what’s the biosphere, when there are other legislative priorities to take care of?
After all, just yesterday, Congress passed a law which will give the post office at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, Michigan a new name. Isn’t that what voters brought the Democrats into power for in 2008?
Yes we… sigh.
This is “our” government in action? Sadly, yes. No leadership, no direction, just status quo all the time (masking an underlying prison state) as jobs vanish, the economy sputters and the environment suffers. Proud to be an AMURICAN, yessiree.
Yeah, and the only way that we’re all going to get jobs from the oil and coal industries is if we allow every inch of our nation to be drilled or mined. That’s pretty much what they want, isn’t it? The Republicans are to blame too, but the Democrats, those damn Democrats promised that they would be different. They’re the same sorry ass corporate whores, just with a different party animal.
Yea, I am sorry to say the dems have really let us all down. I actually believed that getting them in office would make a change, that they, while still politicians, were still concerned more about the people than the reps, but that time is gone. They are just as bad and now there is relatively little we can do if either party is in power, big money and corps truly control the nation.
Time to go Green.
Unfortunately, the Green Party is in a shambles, profoundly mismanaged, and filled with conspiracy theorists and people who really do (no Tea Party hyperbole here) embrace a radical Marxist ideology. I don’t think that the Green Party is a good place to go – and I’m saying that because I’ve seriously explored it. What we need is a solid liberal alternative. Neither the corporate, corrupt Democrats nor the kooky Greens will do.
Sometimes I wonder if the Green Party’s troubles come from small numbers. And it would be easier to bring in a bloc to capture a Green Party local than to capture a Democratic Party local.
If you’re talking about the national Green Party, I agree. But there are local and state Green parties that are really being built up right now – Illinois, Arkansas, Philadelphia, Chicago, Maine, and others.
Right now, it IS the more liberal alternative (unless you live in Vermont). Personally, I like it because I really agree with the idea of taking an ecologist perspective to politics. Not to mention, it isn’t just another third party, it IS part of an international movement, which I see as a huge plus.
Some more reality check here: (especially this: “It’s not natural for crabs to come out of the water like this. They never want to come out of the water if they can help it. They are trying to escape.”
Tracy chimes in. “We are seeing this all over the Gulf now – dolphins, fish, running from the dispersant and oil because they can’t breath. Marine life knows to run out of the way, but we don’t.”
Gene tells us, “This is ripping my heart to pieces. I’m living in high anxiety.” Vicky says that BP and the government are playing down the disaster, when in reality, “anything out there should not be eaten” while pointing out to the water.
Disturbingly, the day after Gene filmed the crabs fleeing the water, residents living near Lake Pontchartrain reported finding thousands of dead fish and crabs in the canals near their homes.)
http://www.truth-out.org/bad-air-barataria61296
While a 3rd, or 4th, or 5th party sounds like a good idea on the surface, it will actually cause more division in the the country and even more people will not be represented. As an example, I will use the Philippines, a country that has a constitution and voting process loosely modeled after the US. There are a no less than 10 major political parties, and over 100 fringe parties in the country. Each of the major parties fields a candidate for the presidential race every 6 years and there is never a winner that has a majority of the voter’s represented. The last president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, won with 30 percent of the votes and the current president, Nonoy Aquino won with 42%. When the president wins an election with a minority, there is a lot of the population that NEVER approves of the president. In addition, the voters also elect a vice president which can be of a different party as it was the case this year.
Bring it back home to the States. Think back about how Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have both sabotaged the general elections in the past. If you add the Green Party and the Tea Party into the mix and there is an election in 2012 with some theoretical results of:
Party A – 40%
Party B – 38%
Party C – 11%
Party D – 10
Assuming that there is a real difference in idealogy in the 4 parties, the first day that the president goes into office, 60% of the people do not approve of him. He will have an uphill battle for the rest of his term, especially if congress and other elected officials are also divided amongst these 4 parties. Id you think there is gridlock now, wait until the real multi – party system takes hold!
In my opinion, if there is going to be a more than 2 party system, we would need to change things a bit. Possibly, abandon the “running mate” concept and give the 2nd place candidate the job of Vice President. At least with the scenario illustrated above, 79% of the population would feel that they are represented in Washington. Force the president and vice president to work together, coming up with good policy. If they can work together and choose to do so, then some great things could happen. If they don’t, then it would be the same as it is now.
Must be that fuzzy math I learned in school.. Party B would be 39%!
Chris, the Philippines and the United States have different standards for presidential elections. The Philippines has a “first past the post” standard, by which the candidate with the most votes wins. The United States does not have a “first past the post” standard; rather, to win presidential election a candidate must win a majority of electoral votes.
This means that if there were third or fourth parties, no single party candidate in the United States could likely win election alone unless that single-party candidate were wildly popular enough to win a majority of electoral votes on his or her own. Some sort of coalition formation in the Electoral College would be likely.