Stickybuffalo.com

Okay, there are these awful ads running lately; I’ve only seen them on Fox, unsurprisingly, but the Y insists on putting Fox News on one of the TVs in the evening. And I’ve seen these dumb ads one time too many. So I took their advice, and contacted Senator Sherrod Brown, to convey the complete opposite of the message promoted in those godawful propaganda spots.

Dear Senator,

I’ve seen a couple of television ads, lately, blasting you for support of “raising energy taxes” and urging constituents to complain to you. I’m not sure what the ads actually refer to [indeed, this is the same Sherrod seemingly in the pocket of the coal industry and supportive of a weaker Clean Air Act; apparently he's still not quite fervent enough in fossil fuel boosterism!], but in case they’ve prompted anyone to make the desired complaints, I felt that I should write to make it clear: not everyone feels that way.

Personally, I do not want energy policies written by the American Petroleum Institute (or the US Chamber of Commerce). We absolutely should have higher taxes on unsustainable, polluting fuels, like oil and, yes, coal as well.

The fossil fuel industry sees no way that it can benefit from acknowledging this, but the fact is that there is no longer any cheap-and-easy option for energy in the medium term. Renewable energy will require costly investment and adjustment, but continued dependence on fossil fuels is already costing us. Aside from the environmental toll, “cheap” oil is dear enough to act as a constant drag on our oil-reliant economy, and that’s unlikely to change no matter how many tax breaks are handed out or safety regulations rolled back. [Ahem, ahem, Senator.] Withdrawl from a harmful addiction is painful, but rehab is still the solution.

Please, work for a “rehab” energy policy for America. Not the “dealer-approved” policies sought by the oil and coal pushers.

Sincerely,
Your Pal, Matt

1. I feel so grateful to Iowa State University for maintaining a pretty clean, respectable athletic program. The biggest “scandal” I can recall was when the men’s basketball coach was found to be a drunk (and a rather sad drunk at that), and promptly fired. I don’t recall any kind of violent backlash afterward, either. (Though I do recall being part of the crowd which marched on President Jischke’s house to protest “Dry VEISHEA” back in the 1990s, so I have some sympathy for Penn State students; it’s so easy to act dumb when you’re in college.) Bigger picture, though, is there some point at which the stink from America’s college athletics world gets so bad that we finally do something to reform it? I’m not sure, though if there is such a point we’re almost certain to get there sooner or later, the way things are going.

2. For the most part, Ohio politics seem to be taking a breather in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election. But, obviously, armchair ideologues never rest, and so it was really no surprise to see rabid wingnut Kevin O’Brien wasting no time in declaring that statehouse Republicans should respond to Issue 2′s defeat by ramming the exact same legislation through all over again. Just exempt cops and firefighters, this time, and that should make it more palatable to voters. Uhhh huh. Frankly, that may have worked, or at least made the vote much closer, had they tried it the first time. At this point, though, I’m pretty sure that Republican-backed collective bargaining restrictions are a radioactive concept in Ohio, and likely to remain that way for a while. And I think the GOP will be the ones getting burned, should they try to shove it down voters’ throats a second time. But, hey, by all means. You go right ahead, Kasich & co., and listen to Kevin O’Brien. He hasn’t steered you wrong yet, has he?

3. It sounds like President Obama may be exercising a kind of “pocket veto” of the abominable Keystone XL pipeline, which has united liberal environmentalists and rural Nebraskans against Canada’s oil industry. If “delaying the study” ends up effectively dooming the plan, great. North America absolutely should be investing in large-scale energy infrastructure projects; those projects absolutely should not involve sinking more money into infrastructure designed for an energy source which is unsustainable from either an economic or an environmental perspective. Building a super pipeline to funnel more of our money into the dead end of petroleum dependency, and the carbon-intensive tar sands to boot, is fucking moronic. I had somewhat higher hopes for the Obama administration on energy and the environment, but it still takes some courage to veto this dogfucker, even via a passive-aggressive approach. For all its negligible worth, Obama has inched closer to winning my vote in 2012.

4. Amidst all the domestic and international cause for despair, there may be at least one glimmering of hope. In a recent public rambling, Warren Ellis notes that “my sixteen year old daughter… has a t-shirt that reads OF COURSE I’M NOT ON FUCKING FACEBOOK.” Mercurial adolescent enthusiasm made you, Zuckerberg, and it can unmake you too.

You’ve probably read how Al Gore has called out President Obama for his duck-and-cover non-approach to climate change and any sort of progressive agenda on energy or the environment, generally.

I don’t think I even need to comment directly on that; I’ve mostly made my statements on those issues and see no call to rush out another one. I do, however, want to deliver a rebuttal to the snotty, sneering, pinheaded little example of “tut, tut” punditry posted by Frank James at NPR.org.

James begins with a condescending little head-pat, congratulating Gore on style for “one of the piece’s pithiest passages,” then having established this as the high-water mark promptly begins pissing and moaning about every substantive point.

Kicking off the “tut, tut” routine, James opines that “[Gore's] disgust for the news media have [sic] generally handled the climate-change issue is readily apparent,” implying that Gore is obviously placing himself outside the realm of what Paul Krugman calls “Very Serious People” through such a blatantly immoderate attitude. (This of course makes an astonishing contrast with NPR’s agonized, breast-beating guiltfest when a right-wing critic takes aim at perceived media faults in a far-less-erudite manner.)

Later on, James returns to the media, pontificating that Gore “mostly glosses over how that sea change has made media outlets rely more on the Trump and Sheen stories to draw audiences to their web sites. To a large degree, news outlets are responding to their consumers by giving them Trump and Sheen.”

James rakes Gore over the coals for failure to satisfactorily address this or that; the spare declaration “Gore doesn’t really deal with these questions” is obviously meant as a devastating kill-shot. Naturally, though, Mr. James has nothing to say  about the appalling implications of his own defense of celebutard journalism. Or about the directly-relevant point made by Gore, and even quoted in James’ post, that “The referee — in this analogy, the news media — seems confused about whether he is in the news business or the entertainment business.” (more…)