But how about the Exxon Valdez oil spill? Nearly every one of the nine causes identified are directly related to Exxon's insistence on profit over adherence to existing safety regulations.
There's the Upper Big Branch mining disaster from earlier this year wherein twenty-nine miners lost their lives. Independent investigations are focusing on the possibility of an overabundance of airborne coal dust, but mine owner Massey Energy Co. is claiming that the cause was naturally-occurring methane. In either case, technology to prevent either problem exists and is already in operational use at many U.S. coal mines. But Massey Energy Co. apparently decided that the risk to the mine workers didn't warrant the additional protection. The Obama administration tried passing legislation to increase oversight and penalties against errant mine owners, but the Republicans successfully stopped the legislation in its tracks a few days ago. Which was more important - the safety of the mine workers, or cheap coal? I guess we now know the answer.
A rather unpopular film among right-wingers is Gasland, a film that documents communities in the United States impacted by natural gas drilling and, specifically, a stimulation method known as hydraulic fracturing in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Texas. [The filmmaker] spoke with residents who have experienced a variety of chronic health problems as well as contamination of their air, water wells or surface water. In some instances, gas companies are replacing the affected water supplies with potable water or water purification kits. Throughout the documentary, [NPR reporter Josh] Fox reached out to scientists, politicians and gas industry executives and ultimately found himself in the halls of Congress as a subcommittee was discussing the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, "a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing." Hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
And let's not forget this year's Gulf Spill, brought to you by the fine folks at Halliburton, BP, and Transocean Ltd. Fox News published a scathing account of the missteps that led to the disaster. The article states BP's internal investigation, released earlier this month, accused subcontractor Halliburton of improperly cementing the well. It blamed rig owner Transocean Ltd. for problems with the blowout preventer on the seafloor a mile down. It even pointed at itself, acknowledging that if the results of a critical pressure test had been correctly interpreted, workers would have known something was horribly wrong in time to do something about it. (It was a BP engineer who once described Macondo as a "nightmare well.") In what most liberals would be shocked to see published by Fox News, the article had this to say about the lasting effects of the Gulf spill: ...the effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska and the 1979 Ixtoc disaster off Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula are still unfolding, so only time will tell. Remember how the Obama administration wanted to remove the $75 million liability cap on oil companies following an oil spill? Who quickly stood up against removing that cap? The Republican senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Ah Glenn. The same old canards? Cherrypick the craziest people on the political right and then pretend they're the standard? So utterly predictable.
Henceforth we'll just assume that you and all other Democrats believe every crazy thing to come out of the mouths of Joy Behar, Michael Moore and Harry Belafonte? And of course I have to assume you support forced abortion for black teenagers, mass sterilization in the third world, mandatory euthenasia, confiscatory taxation, a 100% estate tax, guaranteed employment, mandatory unionization, free speech restrictions on journalists and the internet, banning fast food, etc...
Even your title makes no sense. In the title you contrast liberals and conservatives, but in the article you talk primarily about Republicans. The first two aren't opposites and Republican and Conservative are not synonyms, much though you might like them to be.
Dave
2 - Doug Hunter
I don't have as much energy as Glenn to go point by point. The only areas where I think he has a legitimate claim is gay marriage, a minor benefits issue effecting a small percentage of the population, and drug legalization (both of which I support)
Even with the drug issue, the original premise is of 'what you do not effecting me' and vice versa does not stand up in view the social system the author favors. For example, a drug user choosing to use drugs may not effect me directly, but when he runs out of money and robs my house or car it I'm the one paying for his habit. When he gets caught and put in prison at the cost of $60K a year I'm the one who's taxes are funding it. When he out and into rehab at the nonprofit funded with a government grant I know where they send the bill. When he repeatedly falls off the wagon and can't hold a job and has to go on SS disability due to his unemployability I'm the one who gets stuck with the tab. When during one of his binges he impregnates a fellow user and they have a premature crack baby at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars of intensive care followed by a lifetime of assistance and food stamps and head start and section 8, etc., etc., etc. I'm the one who has to work the extra hours to take care of my family as well as his. That same idea fuels some of the family value morality that gets pushed (single parent children often cost society alot to raise) as well as immigration.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Which party supports equal rights for LGBT's?
Which party supports equal pay for equal work for women?
Is there a "Religious Left"? No. But is there a "Religious Right? Yes...and it is very powerful within the Republican party and you know it.
Is it 'cherry-picking' to point out the Republican party's determination in lockstep to 'protect' Big Business from regulation even when the operations of said Big Business has led to death and suffering? Oh, I forgot - pointing out the Exxon Valdez spill, the Big Branch Creek mine disaster, and the Gulf oil spill was wrong because that was all just 'cherry-picking'. It MUST 'cherry-picking'. Why? Because Dave Said So, that's why!
No, Dave - you're simply figuring that if you pooh-pooh the facts I presented, that you won't have to reach so deep to try to answer for your party's failings.
And that's the difference between you and me - I am not afraid to defend what Democrats and liberals believe and do AND I am not afraid to point out their failings, too...and I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.
You, on the other hand, IMO are afraid to defend what your party believes and does - for much of what they do is quite indefensible. You do sometimes point out their failings...but when you do, regardless of how egregious any particular failing of your party, you address it with a MUCH softer tone than what you use for your attacks on the Democrats. And you very, very rarely admit error - which is more than I can say for most of your compatriots.
4 - zingzing
"For example, a drug user choosing to use drugs may not effect me directly, but when he runs out of money and robs my house or car it I'm the one paying for his habit."
DAMN MARIJUANA ADDICTS ROBBING MY HOUuuuuuuuuuSE!!!!!!!
"When he gets caught and put in prison at the cost of $60K a year I'm the one who's taxes are funding it."
that's the point. get it?
"When he out and into rehab at the nonprofit funded with a government grant I know where they send the bill. When he repeatedly falls off the wagon and can't hold a job and has to go on SS disability due to his unemployability I'm the one who gets stuck with the tab. When during one of his binges he impregnates a fellow user and they have a premature crack baby at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars of intensive care followed by a lifetime of assistance and food stamps and head start and section 8, etc., etc., etc. I'm the one who has to work the extra hours to take care of my family as well as his. That same idea fuels some of the family value morality that gets pushed (single parent children often cost society alot to raise) as well as immigration."
funny. marijuana is now crack. and immigration. you sure you're not confused? because you're obviously tripping on something whacked.
seriously, doug, you need your head adjusted. fucking chill out. marijuana does not produce crack babies. current marijuana laws produce taxes for you to pay. if marijuana was legalized, it would pay its own taxes. understand? see the light?
5 - zingzing
you crackhead republicans sure do know how to fucking legislate morality when you put your fucking crackhead republican minds to it.
6 - Doug Hunter
zing, I almost put a disclaimer in there regarding Marijuana because I knew someone would jump on that. I know a few potheads who are on disability for mental disorder but it's likely they actually have a mental disorder and cope using drugs. I've seen other drugs such as meth take fairly functional people and create wards of the state. The point is your decisions effect me.
7 - Doug Hunter
Back from dropping off kids. Apparently I touched a nerve with you and I apologize and felt I should elaborate further. As I stated, I support legalization of Marijuana as it doesn't have most of the effects I listed. I have smoked marijuana on and off for years, more off lately than not as my friends don't use it. I have nothing against it and would love to see it legalized. I live in a relatively rural area and we have been warned that Mexican drug cartels have moved in and are using remote areas to grow crops. I want it legalized so I don't have to worry about getting shot if I decide to take my kids camping or hiking and stumble across one of these places at the wrong time. The point was to show how your seemingly personal decisions effect me in society. Of course I used an extreme example of a hardcore drug user, but those same principles apply to lots of other situations and the question becomes where to draw the line.
8 - Arch Conservative
"Is there a "Religious Left"? No"
Bzzz.......wrong as usual Glenn.
There is indeed a religious left.
They worship at the altar of big brother.
9 - Jordan Richardson
There is indeed a religious Left in America: Jim Wallis and the Sojourners movement or peace churches or the progressive Christians or the pro-choice Catholics for Choice or intellectuals like Chris Hedges.
There's quite a few more and quite a few movements as well. Their level of power within the Democratic party varies, although in the case of thinkers like Hedges I'd say he's a little "too far left" to even register.
10 - Baronius
Jordan, I just posted something on the same subject under Cotto's thread.
11 - doug m.
If there's a problem with the title, how did it get published?
12 - Cochise
Doug M. It's not a problem with the title as much as a problem with the assumptions behind the title.
13 - Cochise
The 'religious left' is not the handful of Christian hippies. It's the cult of the state. People who worship institutions and bureaucracy and believe in using their power to impose a particular morL vision on e regime, just like the religious right.
14 - Paul
Glenn,
The majority of people’s political beliefs are a little more nuanced than just being strictly liberal or conservative in every aspect. I am a fiscal conservative who believes that our government must abide by the constitution, but I am also an atheist, who could care less if gays serve in the military or get married, and thinks pot should be legalized , among other things. I simply believe in a very limited government that doesn't want to take 50% of what I make and distribute it amongst the ever growing smorgasbord of social programs.
15 - roger nowosielski
Apropos Hedges, Jordan, he is a regular contributor to truthdig.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Paul -
I don't think I ever said that anyone here on BC is strictly liberal or conservative. As liberal as I certainly am, I am against total firearm bans, am for nuclear power, am for a strong nuclear arsenal, and consider Reagan one of the five greatest presidents we've ever had (despite the incredible damage that Reaganomics has done and continues to do to America's economy).
I make my decisions based on provable fact - but fact, I've found, means little to many...particularly on the right. Perhaps that's why only six percent of scientists are Republicans, fifty-five percent are Democrats, and the rest are independent/undecided. I strongly feel that the more conservative a particular person is, the more resistant that person is to new concepts and ideas. Thus, the political disparity among scientists...and the refusal of so many among the Right to accept the reality of human-caused (or at least human-accelerated) Global Warming.
17 - Cindy
It's the cult of the state. People who worship institutions and bureaucracy and believe in using their power to impose a particular morL vision on e regime, just like the religious right.
And it's just like the cult of Libertarianism/Capitalism/'gov't of the size WE want club' (which turns out to be enough to maintain their wealth while). This religion worships the founding fathers and supports anti-freedom, and anti-liberty--except for the personal liberty of those already sitting in the musical economic chairs game. This is evidenced by the cult members, who consist entirely of people who have benefited by the economic system in place. Oh, and it worships corporations and businesses OVER people.
And THAT particular cult is the reason for the existence of the liberal cult of which you speak.
Two cults wrestling for power to control the illegitimate gov't. That is how it will forever be until members of both learn to do something new--or until you kill us all off.
18 - Dr Dreadful
Truth is, when you have a political system dominated by just two huge parties it's difficult to say that one or other of them is "the party of" anything. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are, of necessity, very broad churches.
If anything, the Republicans are a conservative party, which in general terms means they tend to resist change. It's that philosophy which has been at the back of conservative opposition to most modern social rights initiatives.
Dave's right that you can selectively cite just about anything and anyone in order to characterize one or the other party in a desired way, but his own portrayal of the Republicans as a party of social freedom, broadmindedness and tolerance is just as much a caricature. One only has to look at the way red states and GOP legislators invariably vote on social issues to see that. Noting the voices of hundreds of Republican politicians and millions of Republican voters isn't "cherry-picking".
19 - Doug Hunter
We need to break the chain that holds social conservatives with the true fiscal liberals in the Republican party. Some of the minority groups, blacks in particular, are very church oriented already we just need to get the rest of the religious types over there then pick up the mantle on social issues and let the cool kids and college professors come back where they belong.
Libertarian ideals of liberty and limited government appeal to many, but the issues are split right now between parties and for alot it's not worth being associated with the right who is currently caricatured as anti-science knuckle dragging redneck racists. That doesn't describe me, or Dave Nalle, or anybody to the right on the site really but the drumbeat (thanks you Glenn, et al) is so heavy and the idea so ingrained that it keeps alot of people who otherwise share similiar ideals away.
20 - Dr Dreadful
it's not worth being associated with the right who is currently caricatured as anti-science knuckle dragging redneck racists.
That reminds me of a video I saw some time ago in which the celebrated astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (one of my favourite contemporary thinkers and speakers) was asked whether he thought Democrats or Republicans were more pro-science.
His answer, which surprised me and a lot of his audience, is that funding for science tends to be higher under Republican administrations. The general rationale, according to Tyson, is that science drives innovation, which in turn drives investment, which is definitely Republicans' cup of tea (or would be if they hadn't thrown it all into Boston Harbor...) :-)
21 - Jordan Richardson
I know Hedges and his work well, Roger.
He's also the author of I Don't Believe in Atheists and American Fascists, two books that assert his Christian perspective quite clearly.
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
Be that as it may, the fact remains that only six percent of scientists are Republicans.
The fact remains that the majority of Republicans think Global Warming is a myth, or at any rate unaffected at all by human activity despite what the National Academies of Science says quite plainly with a wealth of evidence to back it up.
The fact remains that most Republicans oppose expanding the stem-cell research to the level of other countries...never mind that there is some indication that a man has been cured of AIDS - yes, cured - by stem cell therapy.
There are Democrats who are every bit as guilty of Luddism - such as the ones who oppose nuclear power - but next to nuclear war, an errant asteroid, or other comparable world-ending catastrophes, global warming is likely the greatest threat facing human civilization.
The scientists know it's real and they have a mountain of evidence to back it up. Think about it, Doc - scientific peer review is so strict that even gravity is still 'just' a theory...but global warming is an established scientific fact.
Yet the Republicans refuse accept it - some saying that it's all a big conspiracy, others claiming that the world is too big for humanity to have so great an influence, and some even claim that global warming doesn't exist "because God won't let it happen".
Why is this, Doc? Is the willful ignorance of the global-warming-ain't-real Republicans truly deserving of equal consideration alongside the word of 98% of the world's climatologists and America's National Academies of Science?
What does it take for a conservative to abandon fantastic dogma in the face of so much solid evidence?
And why is it that Big Oil is the world's biggest single funding of opposition to what the world's best and brightest have been telling us for two decades? When, Doc, should we start being applying the same cynicism to the motives of Big Oil that the Republicans apply to any scientific evidence of global warming?
How about right. freaking. now?!?!?
23 - zingzing
doc: "Neil deGrasse Tyson (one of my favourite contemporary thinkers and speakers)..."
that man is one of the most affable and entertaining motherfuckers on the planet, and for a scientist, he's a goddamn miracle. i'll watch him any time he's around, which is always, because this is the internet, and i'm going to watch some of his stuff right the fuck now. i love him.
24 - Doug Hunter
#22
Because most people don't have time to research or fully understand issues they hear bits and pieces and that some are opposing carbon taxes so global warming must be bunk. I don't think alot of knowledgable people argue with the idea that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas by blocking a portion of the outgoing radiation spectrum, as you said that's well established science. There are alot of steps between that simple fact and deciding we need to transfer massive wealth to the developing world or institute a tax that will make energy costs soar. Many oppose the latter but there's often a subtle switch to the former which I'm not arguing with. It's possible to believe that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas (which it is) and not support the expensive and quixotic political solutions being put forward. Surveys can show that much of the public is ill informed on lots of things.
After reading reasonably extensively on the subject I see little evidence of any impending catastrophe due to warming for 100's of years. Now, you're going to say that such and such scientist disagrees. I don't know how to explain that, perhaps the shrillest voices get the most media attention, perhaps there's a bias in grant giving to those who make their problem out to be the most acute, perhaps it's the precautionary principle run amok, perhaps it's herd mentality or a cultural issue or a reason for people to feel superiority that they can sense catastrophe others can't... I simply don't know. What I see when I read the science is much different from the sensational scare stories I hear in the news. It's is a few inches sea level rise just like the last century and in line with the average since coming out of the last ice age coupled with a modest increase in temperatures much as we've already had. Winter is still winter, snow is still snow from our current warming and so it will be in 100 years.
Is it smart to simply burn fossil fuels indefinitely? Probably not, although the planet will survive either way. On the other hand I don't think it's wise to spend $trillions, empower the UN, and reduce our standard of living because a model said in 100 years of burning CO2 the developing world will be facing famine and starvation, especially in light of the fact that the developing world is facing famine and starvation right now sans CO2.
I'd love to have a crystal ball and take a look at the future on this. I think one of two things will happen, either we will develop a cheap alternative energy source which will make the entire exercise pointless or we will take some symbolic to moderate action and as the catastrophes-that-never-were fail to materialize we'll pat ourselves on the back for staving off disaster and move on to the next crisis du jour. Unfortunately, because of the time scales involved there's little chance for an 'I told you so' moment. Sort of an unfulfilling debate.
25 - zingzing
well, mr. hunter, don't you think that investing in green tech will benefit us all? it could make this "impending" disaster not so "impending," even if the disaster isn't "impending" at all. and it could also open up a whole new market. god knows a new tech market would be nice.
there's no downside to green tech, unless it doesn't work. it does work, although there's the possibility that we'll fuck it up. all i know is that the federal gov't has approved 4,603 offshore oil and gas leases since 2005, and approved all of 1 offshore wind projects in the same time. something has to change, and i hope it's not going to continue being the climate.
i say as it's freezing in brooklyn.
i think we can all agree that green's the way to go for r&d. (also, they cured a guy of hiv this week using stem cells, so let's go for that as well.)