so•cial•ism [www.merriam-webster.com]
sÅ-shÉ™-li-zÉ™m, noun, 1837
1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2. a) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Last Saturday John McCain criticized Obama for being a “Socialist.” McCain said in his weekly radio address, “At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives.”

Yet as he blasts his opponent for not being “upfront,” McCain and Sarah Palin have been hiding behind Joe Wurzelbacher, relying on the newly-famous plumber to do the “straight-talking” for them.

“You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism,” McCain said at a North Carolina rally [edition.cnn.com] on Saturday.

On Sunday, Palin told a crowd [blogs.abcnews.com] at a New Mexico airport in reference to Obama’s policies, “Senator Obama said he wants to quote ’spread the wealth.’ What that means is he wants government to take your money and dole it out however a politician sees fit. But Joe the Plumber and Ed the Dairy Man, I believe that they think that it sounds more like socialism. Now is no time to experiment with socialism. “

The McCain campaign’s argument that that Obama’s economic policy—which involves cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans, lifting the government-imposed penalties on retirement funds for those suffering from the financial crisis and about to retire, and promoting small businesses and start-ups by eliminating their capital gains taxes—is Socialist is the factual cousin to claims that he is Muslim and friends with terrorists.

In fact, the Bush Administration exercised more government control over the population than Obama’s policies suggest his administration would. These republican policies have led to a larger government. And as far as government control over the distribution of goods, Congress and the current Republican president just agreed to spend $700 billion of government-controlled money (that was taken from tax-payers) to bail out private banks, thereby nationalizing them in a move that fits the definition of “Socialist” far better than any of Obama’s proposed policies.

The problem here, however, is not so much the factual inaccuracy (regrettably) for calling Obama “Socialist,” but the that McCain and Palin are people’s exploiting prejudices, and going to great lengths to name Obama anything that American culture and ideology has labeled as “bad.”

The term “Socialist” is a loaded in this country, connoting many meanings, the least insidious of which is its dictionary definition. First off, many people in this country are unable to differentiate between Socialism and Communism. The danger here is that calling Obama a “Socialist” is similar to calling him a “terrorist,” but in cold-war terms that may persuade mature voters even more than calling him a “terrorist” would. “Socialism” also suggests “outsider,” as it was imported to the United States from Europe, thereby scaring the large part of the electorate that is foreign-fearing.

Implicit in McCain and Palin’s statements is not only is Obama a “Socialist,” but that voting for him makes you one, because it means you believe in civil rights, equal opportunity and a redistribution of certain resources in the wake of a failed eight-year Bush administration.

–Jamie Wong

Everyone knew it was coming. McCain’s eyelids had been telegraphing it like Morse since the final degate began. The Ayers/Acorn one-two, Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko implicitly implied, the money shot for the McCain/Palin rally monkeys. Obama had been sticking his jaw out, waiting for it, and when McCain landed the punch Obama reacted as if McCain had delved into Canadian trade deals. McCain declined to follow up his assertion that “details needed to be known” by asking about any, and thousands of Palin fanboys gnashed their teeth in impotent frustration and turned off the debate, which is a shame, ‘cause there was some interesting stuff in the second half. So here’s a brief highlight reel [debates.org]:

McCain: Well, Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin…

32% favorability. Yes, we have gotten to know her. [www.nytimes.com]

McCain: ….it’s time we had that bresh of freth air (sic) — breath of fresh air coming into our nation’s capital and sweep out the old-boy network and the cronyism that’s been so much a part of it that I’ve fought against for all these years

”I smell like mothballs.”

Schieffer: Do you (Obama) think she’s qualified to be president?

Obama: PASS

Obama: I think it’s very commendable the work she’s done on behalf of special needs. I agree with that, John. I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we’re going to get serious in terms of research…..And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we’re not going to be able to.

R U SERIUS? U R NOT SERIUS

McCain: …..we’ve sailed Navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, Senator Obama, no problem.

Okay, maybe a small problem. [www.bloomberg.com]

McCain: We can offshore drill now. We’ve got to do it now. We will reduce the cost of a barrel of oil because we show the world that we have a supply of our own.

…because of we don’t tear apart the sofa for loose change right now, we’ll never afford a new house.

McCain: …..if you don’t get — adopt the health care plan that Senator Obama mandates, he’s going to fine you. Now, Senator Obama, I’d like — still like to know what that fine is going to be, and I don’t think that Joe right now wants to pay a fine when he is seeing such difficult times in America’s economy.…..
…………….
Obama: I’m happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you’re out there. Here’s your fine — zero. You won’t pay a fine, because…
MCCAIN: Zero?
OBAMA: Zero

There’s really nothing to add to this moment in writing. The look on McCain’s face is priceless, like he’d just been slapped with a mackerel. You can watch the video here. [www.talkingpointsmemo.com]

McCain: This really gets down to the fundamental difference in our philosophies. If you notice that in all of this proposal, Senator — government wants — Senator Obama wants government to do the job.

Senator Government. One of the greatest Freudian slips of all time.

McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

Considering anybody except for those who do X…..is a litmus test.

Obama: Senator McCain and I disagreed recently when the Supreme Court made it more difficult for a woman named Lilly Ledbetter to press her claim for pay discrimination……

Hello, ladies.

McCain: I don’t know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America…

Holy $#!T! There’s a pro-abortion movement? And an extreme one, at that? Isn’t that redundant? Not to mention, f#%k you too?

McCain: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother. You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That’s the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, “health.”

Air quotes??? That sound you hear is McCain’s polling among women going ker-splattttt.

All in all, John McCain was as energetic as he’s been in any of the debates, which has to be a step up, but he was rambling, unfocused, and angry (and hurting). If I didn’t know better, it looked like he split an eight-ball with W. in the limo. Obama, on the other hand, probably had the mellowest of his three debates, and given his goal of seeming a reassuring presence to those unfamiliar with him, he was the teacher parents trusted and kids admired. That’s 3 for 3.

Now, if only this all meant something.

– Michael Turner

WASHINGTON, DC, October 15, 2008 (ENS) – A bill introduced by Senator Barack Obama that will help protect Americans and people around the world from mercury poisoning by banning the export of elemental mercury from the United States, was signed into law last night by President George W. Bush.

Senator Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, said, “The president’s approval of this bipartisan bill is an important victory for millions of the world’s most vulnerable citizens who are exposed to the harmful effects of mercury every day.”

“Exposure to mercury leads to serious developmental problems in children as well as problems affecting vision, motor skills, blood pressure, and fertility in adults,” said Obama. “Despite our country’s improved efforts to contain and collect mercury over the years, we remain one of the world’s leading exporters of this dangerous product, so I am proud this bill will finally ban mercury exports.”

S. 906, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, prohibits the transfer of elemental mercury by federal agencies, bans U.S. export of elemental mercury by 2013, and requires the Department of Energy to designate and manage an elemental mercury long-term disposal facility.

The Mercury Export Ban Act won support from a wide spectrum of interests, from environmentalists to the American Chemistry Council.

“Today we have won a momentous victory for public health that will save lives both here and abroad,” said Susan Keane, a scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Banning the export of mercury will substantially reduce mercury contamination in fish, prevent the contamination of our water, and shield our children from a dangerous chemical.”

Don’t try this at home. Exposure to elemental
mercury is dangerous. (Photo credit unknown)

“Those involved overcame a difficult political climate to enact bipartisan legislation that will benefit millions of people around the globe,” said Keane. “This is no small feat, and I commend them for their hard work.”

American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley said, “What makes this legislation unique is that it not only reflects support of both Democrats and Republicans, it also reflects what is possible when a broad-based coalition of stakeholder interests comes together. The American Chemistry Council, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Council of the States, the Chlorine Institute, Inc., and the National Mining Association successfully worked together for many months to help enact this legislation to ban exports of elemental mercury from the United States by January 1, 2013.”

The Mercury Export Ban Act puts an end to a vicious cycle of poison, Keane explained. While this dangerous neurotoxin is being phased out by industry and the government here in the United States, surplus mercury is shipped overseas to developing countries, where it is released from highly polluting industries, she said.

“Not only is the air and water in those importing countries contaminated with concentrations of mercury that would not be tolerated in the United States, the mercury can also travel for thousands of miles and can settle right back here in the United States, poisoning Americans mainly through consumption of contaminated fish,” Keane said.

The law, signed by President Bush and passed by the House and Senate with overwhelming majorities, now requires that all mercury in the United States remain here, where it can be managed according to U.S. laws.

It prohibits the departments of Defense and Energy from exporting their huge accumulated stockpiles of mercury.

The bill also directs the Department of Energy to begin operating a long-term storage and management facility for excess mercury.

“I am pleased that President Bush has signed this important legislation which will slow needless mercury emissions, especially in the developing world,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican. who joined Obama in introducing the bill.

“Given our expanding knowledge about the health impacts of elemental mercury when it enters the atmosphere, it only makes sense to take reasonable steps now to safeguard the environment from the release of mercury that can affect fish and potentially those who eat fish,” she said.

“Mercury is a potent neurotoxin hazardous to human health, especially for infants, children, and women who are pregnant or nursing,” said Congressman Tom Allen, a Maine Democrat, who introduced the bill in the House of Representatives.

“Maine people should be able to eat the fish they purchase in the supermarkets,” he said. “We still have much to do to end mercury pollution, and I will continue to fight for passage of my legislation to establish a nationwide mercury pollution monitoring system and the legislation I support requiring utilities to reduce their mercury emissions.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

Barack Obama, in a display of wisdom and sanity that should alone qualify him for the presidency, declined John McCain’s offer earlier this summer to have 493 Town Hall debates, each one of which would have been the televised equivalent of poetry-themed refrigerator magnets; just mix the same set of words up in different orders and – voila! – crushing boredom for everyone. But since last night’s debate was the last opportunity to do this for another four years, I’d like translate some of my favorite highlights of the last time Obama and McCain speak to each other before one of them concedes (hopefully) on Nov. 4.

Bob Schieffer: “I’ll encourage them to ask follow-up questions of each other. If they do not, I will.”

”You will talk about Bill Ayers if I have to drag him out here myself. And I will. He’s tied up in my trunk.

John McCain: ”Americans are hurting right now, and they’re angry. They’re hurting, and they’re angry. They’re innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street and as well as Washington, D.C. And they’re angry, and they have every reason to be angry.

”I’m hurting, angry and projecting.”

McCain: ”a couple days ago Senator Obama was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who’s a plumber, his name is Joe Wurzelbacher….”

“I found this one guy who doesn’t know any more about the economy than I do…and he agrees with me!”

Barack Obama: So, look, nobody likes taxes. I would prefer that none of us had to pay taxes, including myself. But ultimately, we’ve got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong and somebody’s got to do it.
McCain: Nobody likes taxes. Let’s not raise anybody’s taxes. OK?
Obama: Well, I don’t mind paying a little more.

”Kindness. I’m killing you with it.”

McCain: OK, what — what would I cut? I would have, first of all, across-the-board spending freeze, OK? Some people say that’s a hatchet. That’s a hatchet, and then I would get out a scalpel, OK?

If the first item you use in an operation is a hatchet, you can pretty much write off the patient altogether. Using a scalpel on a corpse is called an autopsy.

McCain: Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago

“HA! Nailed it! Can I go home now?”

Obama: …the notion that I voted for a tax increase for people making $42,000 a year has been disputed by everybody who has looked at this claim that Senator McCain keeps on making. Even FOX News disputes it, and that doesn’t happen very often when it comes to accusations about me.

“Sen. McCain, it is my duty to inform you that your pants are ablaze. FYI.”

McCain: …if Senator Obama had asked — responded to my urgent request to sit down, and do town hall meetings…..I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different.

“It’s his fault I’ve been acting like a dick.”

McCain: “I’m not going to stand for somebody saying that because someone yelled something at a rally — there’s a lot of things that have been yelled at your rallies, Senator Obama, that I’m not happy about either. In fact, some T-shirts that are very unacceptable.”

“Death threats……a naughty word on a t-shirt. Same difference.”

McCain: Yes, real quick. Mr. Ayers, I don’t care about an old washed-up terrorist. But as Senator Clinton said in her debates with you…

“No. I don’t have the balls to do this directly.”

McCain: We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama’s relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

”I have no idea what I’m talking about. Did it sound scary enough?”

McCain: ” — all of the details need to be known about Senator Obama’s relationship with them (Ayers) and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment. And my campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America…”

”I just broke my own neck from rhetorical whiplash.”

……to be continued.

– Michael Turner

The presidential candidates put their attack politics aside yesterday and successfully argued their positions for 90 minutes at what was supposed to be a town hall style debate. Audience participation was limited to reading questions off of cue cards and then staying silent, but both candidates seemed to appreciate the walk and talk format that brought them closer to the audience of undecided voters, especially John McCain. Microphone in hand, walking up to audience members and looking into the eyes McCain said the following,

“You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly — talk softly, but carry a big stick. Senator Obama likes to talk loudly.”

The line conjured images of a man whose heroes were born two centuries ago, of a man walking (or talking) carefully and slowly with a cane in hand, and of a man who is telling the young people to “keep it down!”. Then one thought came to mind: this man is old; this man is John McCain.

Now I know it is not politically correct to call McCain old, and it is prejudice to suggest old people wouldn’t make good presidents. But I’d like to put correctness aside for a moment and reveal my true feelings about this.

The guy looked really old last night. He was hobbling around. He was misspeaking in a way that people whose minds are slowing down—god bless them—speak. He attempted to make a joke about hair implants. He was hobbling around the floor. At the end of the debate, after shaking Obama’s hand, he walked to the side of the stage and hiked up his pants like the proverbial grandpa.

Now all these qualities are lovely, and I mean that. In my heart I hold deep respect for people who have put in their years and in return gained wisdom that’s inaccessible to someone like myself, nearly a third his age. This I write with utmost sincerity.

But I do not think it is beneficial to the political process or to this country to shy away from a conversation about age and aging as it pertains to presidential candidates who are in their twilight years, as the country is in the twilight of an historic and crucial election cycle.

Talking about McCain’s age is difficult because you can get accused of being prejudiced and disrespectful. But I think there is a deeper, less conscious reason for our silence: mortality, and namely, the fear of our own.

Our culture values youth; being old is frowned upon. Similarly, our culture values white; being black has been traditionally—and arguably still is—frowned upon. As a consequence, it is inappropriate to call the age or race of the candidates into question when examining their qualifications to be the next president of the United States. But a logical fallacy exists in equating these two qualities that too often get thrown in the same category of “descriptors.” The race of the next president does not have the potential to negatively impact his abilities as Commander in Chief. His age does.

I imagine I may have stepped beyond the comfort zone of many with this premise, but I do think it’s important to begin talking about McCain’s age as it pertains to his ability to perform as president. Without discourse about age now, WE could be the ones learning on the job, and that is a risk we cannot afford to take.

-Jamie Wong

WASHINGTON, DC, February 4, 2008 (ENS) – Millions of Americans will vote in the Super Tuesday primary elections on February 5th, and many will consider the candidates’ shade of green before casting their ballots. From addressing climate change to touting biofuels, the presidential hopefuls promise a wide range of sustainable actions if elected. But which candidate is more likely to act once he or she is sworn into office?

If you listen to them speak, the remaining presidential candidates can sometimes sound like jolly green political giants. They discuss carbon caps, pledge to mandate renewable energy, and promote clean technology including solar, wind and biofuels.

Senator Barack Obama of
Illinois, Democratic
candidate (Photo
courtesy Office of
Senator Obama)

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have addressed green issues including carbon cap and trade systems, renewable energy, and biofuels much more frequently while campaigning than their Republican counterparts.

Republicans John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee have said comparatively little about climate change or clean energy during their debates or on the stump so far. Promoting clean energy for them is often in the context of energy independence and national security.

This is not a surprise since the environment is of greater importance to Democratic voters, according to author Terry Tamminen, who was the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency under Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Sadly, Republican candidates believe that their ‘base’ voters don’t care about environmental issues in general and, in many cases, don’t believe in global warming,” Tamminen says.

Tamminen created a scorecard grading the candidates’ action plans for climate change and gave both Democrats a B and an F to all three Republicans.

Senator Hillary Clinton
of New York,
Democratic
candidate
(Photo courtesy
Clinton for
President)

Once the general election starts, he says the Republican nominee would likely become more vocal about climate change and related issues to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters.

Talk is cheap, however, especially when it comes to presidential campaigning.

“Part of the problem is that candidates say a lot of things that they don’t follow through on,” says George A. Gonzalez, an associate professor in the department of political science at the University of Miami. “Can we understand how they will govern based on how they campaign? Unfortunately not.”

More telling of what the candidates would do as president are their connections to lobbyists and the record of their energy and environmental policies, according to experts.

Rich Gold, a partner at the law firm of Holland and Knight who practices in the area of legislative and environmental law, says voters should, “Look more at their historical relationships and their life experiences.”

Gold, who worked in the Clinton administration, says if there is a gap between what the candidates are saying during the primary season and what their political philosophy has traditionally been, believe their historical views.

For example, when George Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, he claimed to support a cap and trade system on carbon emissions, which contradicted his 20 years of working in the oil business. Gold says, it “shouldn’t have surprised people that he flip-flopped.”

A president who acts to limit carbon emissions or mandate renewable energy production would not be popular with the oil and gas crowd, especially if they helped to get him or her into the White House.

Senator John McCain
of Arizona,
Republican candidate
(Photo courtesy
Office of Senator
McCain)

When criticized for accepting money from energy companies, Hillary Clinton has protested that she makes her legislative decisions independent of campaign contributions.

Experts differ on the influence of oil, nuclear and coal industries on presidents. Professor Gonzalez says that “any president will have to take their counsel to a certain extent.”

According to author Tamminen, the oil industry contributed $186 million to congressional and presidential candidates during the past decade and received generous tax breaks in return, adding that, “While it’s hard to prove any specific act of money-in-favors-out, those numbers speak for themselves.”

Attorney Gold, however, says presidents act largely above the lobbyist fray. “I don’t think people at that level are making decisions based on who gave them money.”

The three senators who are running for president have considerable differences in their environmental voting records, according to data from the League of Conservation Voters, LCV.

According to the LCV scorecard, Obama had a perfect score during the 2006 congressional session – the last year that data was compiled. Clinton scored 71 percent, and McCain scored just 29 percent.

Despite Obama’s stellar environmental voting record, he supports clean coal and nuclear technologies that are important to the economy of his home state of Illinois, but that some environmentalists find objectionable.

In January of 2007, Obama co-sponsored the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007, which would provide funding to companies that convert coal to liquid diesel fuel. After taking heat on the bill, several months later Obama backtracked, saying he would only support clean coal initiatives that would reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent as compared with conventional fuels.

Mike Huckabee,
former governor
of Arkansas
(Photo courtesy
Huckabee for
President)

He has also supported incentives for nuclear energy. He voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which, along with some funding for renewables, gave tax breaks to companies for expanding nuclear power.

Clinton has not authored any significant legislation concerning climate change or renewable energy. She has voted against funding coal to liquids technologies as well as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that provided incentives for the nuclear industry. In 2007, she voted to expand offshore oil drilling.

McCain began sponsoring legislation to address climate change in 2003, before it became a popular subject in the Senate. The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 was revised and presented to the Senate again in 2005, but failed to pass. It provides for a cap on U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases and a trading system for emissions permits.

Like Clinton, McCain voted to expand offshore drilling, but unlike his two peers, he was not present to vote for the landmark 2007 energy bill that raised vehicle fuel economy standards.

Mitt Romney,
former governor
of Massachusetts
(Photo courtesy
Romney for President)

Both governors took measures to address climate change during their administrations. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee adopted the National Governors Association’s 2006 policy position on climate change, promoted energy efficiency by switching to compact fluorescent lighting, and signed into law the Arkansas Renewable Energy Development Act.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney promoted a Climate Protection Plan, which encouraged required state agencies and large businesses to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He supported an agreement of Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Neither governor did much while in office to encourage the development of clean technology.

Whoever takes office in 2008 will have to prioritize energy and environmental concerns among many other issues and work closely with Congress to enact new laws.

Attorney Gold says that with a slipping economy, climate change legislation may have to take a back seat. Working with Congress during the “honeymoon days” that coincide with a new administration might be the best time to get green legislation passed, according to Gold.

Professor Gonzalez says the increased talk of clean energy and climate concerns on the campaign trail could result in new executive action. Once in the White House, Gonzalez says, a candidate who made promises to the electorate might do more than one who did not. He says, “I have more hope that someone who is talking about it more will take action.”

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.