Nobody caring much about global warming?

Here is a short summary of Massachusetts v. EPA, decided today by the U.S. Supreme Court. The summary is provided by a lawyer working on global warming and then edited by me. (These are not quotes from the Court’s opinion.) (I am also working on presenting this case to my law stuents today.)

1. 5-4 decision. The usual suspects. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote these days, joined the liberals on this one.

2. Court holds that Massachusetts has standing because as a quasi-sovereign Massachusetts has special status under the doctrine of parens patriae. Also (1) the injuries from global warming are concrete harms that are actual and imminent, (2) greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and therefore there is a causal nexus between EPA’s refusal to regulate and the harms from global warming; (3) it is enough that the remedy here would slow or reduce global warming – there is no need to establish that the case would reverse global warming.

3. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” within the meaning of the Clean Air Act and thus EPA does have authority to regulate them under the statute.

4. As for mileage standards on motor vehicles, a job Congress gave to the Department of Transportation, DOT can do its job at the same time that EPA is doing its job. They are not inconsistent.

5. The Clean Air Act says that EPA is to use its “judgment” in deciding what harms public health or welfare, but: “the use of the word “judgment” is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text” (quote from the Court).

And here is a bit more concerning our President and EPA’s argument that to combat global warming might interfere with the President’s foreign policy. Note: These are quotes from the Court’s opinion:

“EPA has refused to comply with [the law’s] clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate. For example, EPA said . . . that regulating greenhouse gases might impair the President’s ability to negotiate with “key developing nations” to reduce emissions and that curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect “an inefficient, piecemeal approach to address the climate change issue.”

“Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate these policy judgments, it is evident they have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. In particular, while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws.”

And then there is this:

“Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so.”

That is because Congress stated in the Clean Air Act of 1970 that if something is a pollutant that endangers public health or welfare it must be regulated.

The Court, in the end, does not say that the Bush Administration’s EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, but it has to have a good reason for refusing to do so — one that it did not present so far. In the words of the Court:

“In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, . . .”

If the Bush-era EPA wants to say now, after the case comes back to it, that greenhouse gases do not contribute to global warming and therefore do not endanger us, or that there are speficic policy reasons for letting us cook in Hell (my words), “EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.”

In short, the decision goes back to EPA and control for the rest of us goes forward to Congress.

Nobody caring much about global warming?

Here is a short summary of Massachusetts v. EPA, decided today by the U.S. Supreme Court. The summary is provided by a lawyer working on global warming and then edited by me. (These are not quotes from the Court’s opinion.) (I am also working on presenting this case to my law stuents today.)

1. 5-4 decision. The usual suspects. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote these days, joined the liberals on this one.

2. Court holds that Massachusetts has standing because as a quasi-sovereign Massachusetts has special status under the doctrine of parens patriae. Also (1) the injuries from global warming are concrete harms that are actual and imminent, (2) greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and therefore there is a causal nexus between EPA’s refusal to regulate and the harms from global warming; (3) it is enough that the remedy here would slow or reduce global warming – there is no need to establish that the case would reverse global warming.

3. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” within the meaning of the Clean Air Act and thus EPA does have authority to regulate them under the statute.

4. As for mileage standards on motor vehicles, a job Congress gave to the Department of Transportation, DOT can do its job at the same time that EPA is doing its job. They are not inconsistent.

5. The Clean Air Act says that EPA is to use its “judgment” in deciding what harms public health or welfare, but: “the use of the word “judgment” is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text” (quote from the Court).

delete “2″ please. Sorry.

Too weird.

I thought you were making it up.

But no, it’s fact stranger than fiction!

Is it the Chicago Tribune that is connected to Conrad Black?

Teddy on the front page!
Again!
WOOT!

Teddy! Yay!

Sorry, but EPUd, so wanted to get going here on global warming. This is incredibly big news.

In my personal view, there are about 4 issues that override most others these days:

1. The issue highlighted in Teddy’s main post, which is the loss of an independent press and the resultant coddling of corruption.

2. The losses to our democracy, in the way that Rove et al. have worked to steal our votes. Facilitated by #1.

3. The abusive misuse of power in the world, facilitated by #1 and #2.

4. The abusive failure to use governmental power to limit private abuses, including in particular the pollution leading to loss of our planet.

And that’s why the Supreme Court decision today is so important. The road back . . . . .

The Washington press corps wants us to believe they, their editors, and their managers maintain a healthy distance from sources and subjects — and then they “leak” news of these events. Are these dinners staged just to infuriate us, the Accountability Police? No, I’m afraid they are Exhibit One in the argument which begins, “You have lost your perspective…”

Remember all the hand-wringing over the video of Saddam’s execution — now, just a few months later, it’s musical theatre parody fodder? And who’s responsible for letting Novakula onstage as Cheney to sing about betraying Valerie? Isn’t this still an ongoing legal proceeding?

So since my #1 is still waiting for moderation, while my #2 (which was half of it) is printed here, I’ll put the second half here now.

If #1 ever shows up, we can delete the two halves. Or delete #1 and let the first half of it (in #2) and this second half stand.

Anyway, here is a bit more concerning our President and EPA’s argument that to combat global warming might interfere with the President’s foreign policy. Note: These are quotes from the Court’s opinion:

“EPA has refused to comply with [the law’s] clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate. For example, EPA said . . . that regulating greenhouse gases might impair the President’s ability to negotiate with “key developing nations” to reduce emissions and that curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect “an inefficient, piecemeal approach to address the climate change issue.”

“Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate these policy judgments, it is evident they have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. In particular, while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws.”

And then there is this:

“Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so.”

That is because Congress stated in the Clean Air Act of 1970 that if something is a pollutant that endangers public health or welfare it must be regulated.

The Court, in the end, does not say that the Bush Administration’s EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, but it has to have a good reason for refusing to do so — one that it did not present so far. In the words of the Court:

“In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, . . .”

If the Bush-era EPA wants to say now, after the case comes back to it, that greenhouse gases do not contribute to global warming and therefore do not endanger us, or that there are speficic policy reasons for letting us cook in Hell (my words), “EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.”

In short, the decision goes back to EPA and control for the rest of us goes forward to Congress.

Yes.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (h/t Atrios).

Raph Levien @ 10

Yes.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (h/t Atrios).

In the interest of expansive commenting, Ralph, I’m going to ask you to show your work. ;)

By “going forward to Congress” I mean this:

Sending the issue of automobile emissions back to EPA is only 1/5 of a victory.

Actually, Congress should be the one that states what is needed for automobiles, not EPA. And we should do exactly what the Congress in 1970 did: order a 90% reduction in emissions.

When Congress did it in 1970, it did not know if it was “technologically feasible.” It just ordered it. It was based on a rough hunch that we needed that to make air healthier. An eventually the auto industry did it.

But now we have to do the same thing for carbon dioxide — and the way to make it stick is for Congress simply to order it.

Then, having done that, we need to issue the same orders to coal-fired power plants, and other sources of CO2.

90%.

A political decision, not a “technical” decision. We have to make that happen.

Stupid press. Make them stop..

ot-from earlier thread,

Impeach bush for blowing the job.

I want that as a button, but can’t find it on google. Anyone??

With big business owning virtually all media in this country, not to mention most politicians, I do not see an immediate answer on how do we separate these two classes of people who should be arch enemies.

TeddySanFran @ 11

In the interest of expansive commenting, Ralph, I’m going to ask you to show your work. ;)

It’s just a rhetorical device I borrowed from Atrios, who uses it effectively to show how stupid the mainstream discourse has become.

I was convinced you were making this up and was going to give you kudos for your cleverness until I read the WaPo article and realized it was real. However, I’m still struggling with accepting it as non-fiction.

Mandrake @ 16

I was convinced you were making this up and was going to give you kudos for your cleverness until I read the WaPo article and realized it was real. However, I’m still struggling with accepting it as non-fiction.

I am chocolate jesus. Eat me.

Great to see you on the front page Teddy

Between David Gregory rapping (practically against his will, according to Howie Kurtz this morning) and Helen Thomas portraying Kim Jong-Il in a skit featuring Saddam’s hanging, I’ve got fewer heroes in DeeCee this week than last.

But I am not alone.

Chicago: The video of “MC Rove” “rapping” at the Radio and TV Correspondents Dinner was the most disgusting thing I have seen in a long time. I wanted to gouge my own eyes out after viewing it. Media outlets should play this on a split screen with the scenes of bloody horror, bombings, and devastation in Iraq. Also, David Gregory should hang his head in shame and abasement. Seriously Howard, it was disgusting and shameful. I know you people in Washington think this is funny, but White House correspondents should not be dancing and “rapping” with the officials they cover.

Howard Kurtz: I’m not a big fan of these dinners, but I guess I don’t understand what was “disgusting” and “shameful” about it. You seem to regard Rove as the enemy and feel there should be absolutely no fraternization at any time under any circumstances. As for David Gregory’s role, he was plucked out of the audience by these two not-terribly-funny comedians, as was Brian Williams. I doubt they would have volunteered for this distasteful duty.

At my DFA (Democracy for America) meetings, attendees would say….. “why don’t I hear XXX or why don’t you hear the Democrats do XXX”. Finally I think I have gotten into their heads that there is NO media. The news has been canceled.

Every meeting I would provide weblinks to great sites where users could learn about real news and participate in being the media.

Now Teddy IS the media…..gee I knew you when…. Great post and keep being the media.

A thousand Nero’s.

-GSD

“I don’t know why it would feel too cozy. We’re not sucking up to them.”

Exactly. At least not at the dinner. That is their day job.

I have been struggling with what I thought was the return of a stomach flu today. Now I am beginning to wonder. Each time I read a new post my stomach churns a little more. Teddy, make it just be the flu, please.

katymine @
20

At my DFA (Democracy for America) meetings, attendees would say….. “why don’t I hear XXX or why don’t you hear the Democrats do XXX”. Finally I think I have gotten into their heads that there is NO media. The news has been canceled.

Every meeting I would provide weblinks to great sites where users could learn about real news and participate in being the media.

Now Teddy IS the media…..gee I knew you when…. Great post and keep being the media.

Big Media Teddy. Taking over the world…one blog post at a time.

TeddySF !!!

glad to see you on the front page

Jon Stewart summed it up nicely for me

You know those correspondent dinners they have in Washington ? where the media gets a chance one night to put aside their cozy relationship with the government for one that is nauseatingly syncophantic ?

Who writes these “skits”? Who is behind the productions?

Re the Roberts’ dissent in Massachusetts v EPA

Roberts is a slippery cuss. He argues that Massachusetts has no special legal standing to bring the case and that it can not show a specific injury that it or anyone from Massachusetts has directly suffered due the government’s inaction. Further, since the EPA can not completely eliminate global warming by regulating CO2 emissions in motor vehicles, such regulation is not a remedy and so the EPA is under no obligation to address it or do anything at all about it. Finally, Roberts sees the suit as “symbolic”, i.e. that is it seeks to force the government to follow its own laws, such as the Clean Air Act. “The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates.” I believe the concrete in question here refers to that substance that Roberts has in his head in lieu of brains.

Roberts ridicules the Massachusetts claim that it has suffered an injury due to a loss of coastal land. However as noted in the syllabus, this is not necessarily the only loss:

The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events. That these changes are widely shared does not minimize Massachusetts’ interest in the outcome of this litigation.

In brief, Roberts takes such a narrow view of the facts in this case that he creates a totally novel legal theory out of it, that if the government misbehaves on a large enough and general enough scale, neither state nor citizen can have any redress. If the government crushes our rights broadly, then none of us can make a specific complaint against it, and at the same time we could make no general complaint because we lack standing.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/…..5-1120.pdf

Thank goodness we’re no longer in the pre-accountability era!

The post-accountability era is sooooo much better.

Howard Kurtz: I’m not a big fan of these dinners, but I guess I don’t understand what was “disgusting” and “shameful” about it.

I’ll give you 3,252 reasons -

Hmmmmm, makes you wonder….

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. “An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.” U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

LS @ 4

Is it the Chicago Tribune that is connected to Conrad Black?

No, he owned the Chicago Sun-Times.

More lovely details:

The Gridiron Club itself performs at a high level of amateur art, opening last night with the Gridiron Bleeding Hearts Club Band, with no apologies to Sergeant Pepper.

“It’s W’s war,” they sang, “but the bloggers say we’re to blame, because we played along…. Oh we played ball with the president’s men… We can’t recall our conversations with them.”

Hugh @ 27

In brief, Roberts takes such a narrow view of the facts in this case that he creates a totally novel legal theory out of it, that if the government misbehaves on a large enough and general enough scale, neither state nor citizen can have any redress. If the government crushes our rights broadly, then none of us can make a specific complaint against it, and at the same time we could make no general complaint because we lack standing.

Um, can we impeach him for lack of logic? That reasoning makes so little sense that I think it would be rejected by Lewis Carroll for inclusion in the Looking Glass world.

Only the Rahm song was funny. The rest…NOT! Rather goulish, to me. Is Thomas getting senile? Oh, and was that a rhetorical question???

OT – nancy pelosi gave a speech to the israeli knesset yesterday. it is scheduled to be on c-span at 5:44pm. (jpost report).

i’m a little fearful after reading her recent speech to a*p*c….

jackie @ 30

Hmmmmm, makes you wonder….

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. “An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.” U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

So much of what is going on today harkens back to the Gilded Age (1915 a little late for that, but times hadn’t changed that much), and for the same reasons. Money & power got together & screwed the rest of the people.

TeddySanFran @
32

More lovely details:

The Gridiron Club itself performs at a high level of amateur art, opening last night with the Gridiron Bleeding Hearts Club Band, with no apologies to Sergeant Pepper.

“It’s W’s war,” they sang, “but the bloggers say we’re to blame, because we played along…. Oh we played ball with the president’s men… We can’t recall our conversations with them.”

It is all a silly cocktail party game to these cretins…..

-GSD

P J Evans @ 33

Hugh @ 27

In brief, Roberts takes such a narrow view of the facts in this case that he creates a totally novel legal theory out of it, that if the government misbehaves on a large enough and general enough scale, neither state nor citizen can have any redress. If the government crushes our rights broadly, then none of us can make a specific complaint against it, and at the same time we could make no general complaint because we lack standing.

Um, can we impeach him for lack of logic? That reasoning makes so little sense that I think it would be rejected by Lewis Carroll for inclusion in the Looking Glass world.

Roberts it seems to me makes his decisions based on a broad interpretation of Executive power and then dresses them up in whatever legal drapery he can find. So yes, it’s Alice like in the sense that he doesn’t interpret the law to come to a decision but the reverse.

If we are just a bunch of annoying unwashed bloggers, why do our comments seem to bother them (MSM) so?

Technically, Neikirk is correct in the sense that the sucking has long since progressed from “up” to “off.”

If I want to be mildly entertained I just go to the network news,

Now if I want the real deal and a good laugh to boot…

Stewart and Colbert are my favorite spots…

I am trying to decode the other key Environmental communication from SCOTUS today re: Env Defence vs Duke Energy. This looks like a huge loss for any green but I don’t know enought to tell. Anyone understand it?

Env Def v Duke Decision

Gnome de Plume @ 39

If we are just a bunch of annoying unwashed bloggers, why do our comments seem to bother them (MSM) so?

Their power is being eroded and they are very afraid. Their problems probably started before internet, as a result of getting fat & lazy. But they wouldn’t realize that. They date the decline from advent of blogs.

What’s so interesting, from an eCAHNomist’s POV, is that they don’t take the increase in competition as a motivation for improvement, but instead castigate the competition. That’s the reason I predict they will gradually disappear. Unless their behavior changes, and it shows no evidence of that.

Bravo Teddy!

My late newspaper reporter Daddy would be as proud of you as this ole brat for another smoking front page post!

He had grown increasingly alarmed at the growing collusion of major media, corporate and politicos and all that implies for we hapless citizen consumers of national news. Mercifully, netroots treasures like FDL are gaining ground daily in this epoch battle for truth.

My, my @ 41

If I want to be mildly entertained I just go to the network news,

Now if I want the real deal and a good laugh to boot…

Stewart and Colbert are my favorite spots…

There was a long and articulte email on the Cockburn session on C-SPAN2 yesterday, from a 16 year old who said she was completely cynical & only news she watched was Stewart & Colbert. I thought: What a smart cookie.

Gnome de Plume @ 39

If we are just a bunch of annoying unwashed bloggers, why do our comments seem to bother them (MSM) so?

Yeah, and what’s really uncivil — a coupla naughty words, or singing happy songs about destroying a CIA network dedicated to containing loose nukes?

The DeeCee circuit epitomizes end-stage imperial corruption and courtier decadence.

eCAHNomics @
45

My, my @ 41

If I want to be mildly entertained I just go to the network news,

Now if I want the real deal and a good laugh to boot…

Stewart and Colbert are my favorite spots…

There was a long and articulte email on the Cockburn session on C-SPAN2 yesterday, from a 16 year old who said she was completely cynical & only news she watched was Stewart & Colbert. I thought: What a smart cookie.

Ahh, to be sixteen again….

oh well….

Hoping I’m half as smart as that teenager…

… thanks for all your kind words. I wish America’s current power configuration made these posts a little more difficult to come up with, but there you are.

TeddySanFran @ 45

Gnome de Plume @ 39

If we are just a bunch of annoying unwashed bloggers, why do our comments seem to bother them (MSM) so?

Yeah, and what’s really uncivil — a coupla naughty words, or singing happy songs about destroying a CIA network dedicated to containing loose nukes?

The DeeCee circuit epitomizes end-stage imperial corruption and courtier decadence.

DING!

Bill Neikirk of the Chicago Tribune said: “I don’t know why it would feel too cozy. We’re not sucking up to them.”

Monica Lewisky did less sucking up to power than they do.

Wilson May 2004 just starting on C-SPAN3.

Was Ed Schultz invited? Cuz I just heard Harry Reid speaking with Ed, and he said that there is new legislation coming to end the war now. Not one more drop of blood, not one more missing limb, not one more head injury is what he said several times. Stay tuned on that one!

Gnome de Plume @39
eCAHNomics @43
Great points. Funny how media behavior (denial, doing the same thing over & over expecting a different result) mirrors the republicans. That’s what happens when you hang out with scum.

Frank Probst @
50

Bill Neikirk of the Chicago Tribune said: “I don’t know why it would feel too cozy. We’re not sucking up to them.”

Monica Lewisky did less sucking up to power than they do.

Or as former Congressman Bill McCollum called her: Monica LeWitness.

-GSD

Terry Olson @ 52

Was Ed Schultz invited? Cuz I just heard Harry Reid speaking with Ed, and he said that there is new legislation coming to end the war now. Not one more drop of blood, not one more missing limb, not one more head injury is what he said several times. Stay tuned on that one!

I have the TV on in the background so my info may not be correct – i thought CNN said that if Chimpy vetoes the timetable, dems will introduce legislation to cut off war funding.

TeddySanFran @
32

More lovely details:

The Gridiron Club itself performs at a high level of amateur art, opening last night with the Gridiron Bleeding Hearts Club Band, with no apologies to Sergeant Pepper.

“It’s W’s war,” they sang, “but the bloggers say we’re to blame, because we played along…. Oh we played ball with the president’s men… We can’t recall our conversations with them.”

Sounds like the annual meeting of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

I need to get a life. Listing to Wilson on C-SPAN3, I come to remember that I also listened to it when it was first broadcast.

Ed Schultz will be on Niel Cavuto at 4:00. I think that’s CNN.

May I say how wonderful it is to see Teddy up top!

(all puns intended along with sincerity)

ReneND @ 13

Stupid press. Make them stop..

ot-from earlier thread,

Impeach bush for blowing the job.

I want that as a button, but can’t find it on google. Anyone??

Good one! See if you can find a site that will let you “make your own” – I made my own bumpersticker that way.

Terry Olson @
58

Ed Schultz will be on Niel Cavuto at 4:00. I think that’s CNN.

Cavuto, is a Fox tool.

-GSD

Pathetic Tuckler Carlson and regular guest Pat Buchanan have a pissy problem with Matthew Doud – how they shamelessly throw their own converts to the wolves.

Switched to CNN and the Ragin’ Cajun Carville is sitting there looking ridiculous in a tailored expensive suit wearing a bright red baseball cap sporting a huge W….on to c-span…when will I ever learn.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenew…..424029.htm

Reuters News alert

GSD @ 61

Terry Olson @
58

Ed Schultz will be on Niel Cavuto at 4:00. I think that’s CNN.

Cavuto, is a Fox tool.

-GSD

It IS getting hard to tell the difference between CNN and FOX. CNN has had John Bolton on numerous times in the last 7 days – unchallenged and, apparently, tom delay is soon to be on the payroll. Suzanne Malveaux just said this re: Reid’s plan to cut funding if chimp vetoes: “i don’t think any democrat will back this, i mean, who is going to back this losing strategy?” (not a direct quote but close)

Go Russ and Harry!!!!!!!!!

Gnome de Plume @ 39

If we are just a bunch of annoying unwashed bloggers, why do our comments seem to bother them (MSM) so?

Because people like Jane, Christy, Pach, Marcy, and Josh Marshall are gaining credibility for doing bona fide journalism which is embarrassing the hell out of the msm since they dropped that pesky inconvenience of rooting out facts long ago. And they’re really ticked off by the fact that the intrepid progressive bloggers, who are becoming the more reliable sources of information, may force them to do their jobs again (that is if they can still remember how).

(As for all the other excellent bloggers at FDL, that goes for you, too. I’m just listing some of the more prominent ones who’ve also gotten airtime on the msm outlets – including TEE-VEE! And, of course, Jane & Christy are our Heroines of Truth!)

OT: Checkpoints (sobriety) in Texas. Currently illegal, but they want to put this through. People are up in arms. What do you think about this???

http://www.590klbj.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=65977

OT via Thinkprogress – Bush Abstinence Czar Resigns

Wade Horn, the Bush administration’s point man for welfare reform, Head Start and abstinence education, resigned Monday as assistant secretary for children and families. Horn “oversaw a dramatic increase in funding for abstinence education, which now exceeds $200 million a year” and gave more money to “faith-based groups and organizations that work to help couples improve their marriage.”

Not to mention CNN’s continued relationship with the drug addled mind of misogynist and gay and imigrant basher Glenn Prick.

-GSD

newspaperbrat @ 61

Pathetic Tuckler Carlson and regular guest Pat Buchanan have a pissy problem with Matthew Doud – how they shamelessly throw their own converts to the wolves.

Switched to CNN and the Ragin’ Cajun Carville is sitting there looking ridiculous in a tailored expensive suit wearing a bright red baseball cap sporting a huge W….on to c-span…when will I ever learn.

Mr. NPB just peeked at CNN & saw Carville and remarked the W stands for whore heh heh..

realworld @ 42

I am trying to decode the other key Environmental communication from SCOTUS today re: Env Defence vs Duke Energy. This looks like a huge loss for any green but I don’t know enought to tell. Anyone understand it?

Env Def v Duke Decision

Actually, this is a GOOD thing–Duke Power and all the other big coal producers tried to say that if they added onto existing coal plants, they didn’t have to file new permits (”New Source Review”) for these plants. This decision means they must file new permits. (Basically, the Bush Admin overturned Clinton Admin rules.)

The chickens will be crying about the sky falling (”energy prices will skyrocket…” etc.) But, new source review will force these utilities to look at new clean coal technologies more closely and they’ll have to implement energy conservation/efficiency programs in concert with these new plants (the south has ignored efficiency for the most part, unlike the NE, Upper Midwest, and West). Once California, NY, WI, Vermont, Oregon, etc. can drag the rest of the country kicking and screaming into the energy efficiency world, the marketing push/pull will be so strong that prices for efficient products will continue to fall and varieties/options will grow. Hooray!

P.S. Teddy: sorry to be OT…congrats on your move to the big time!!!

From the NYT’s on the dismissal of Paul K. Charlton, former USA – Arizona:

Crime Intensifies Debate Over Taping of Suspects

By ERIC LIPTON and JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: April 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 31 — The account, buried in a mountain of documents assembled for a Congressional investigation, describes a decidedly local yet brutal crime: a Navajo man charged with beating his girlfriend nearly to death and then hanging her by a rope outside their Arizona trailer home to make the attack look like a suicide attempt.

The crime has none of the political intrigue of the other cases, mainly dealing with government corruption or voter fraud, before lawmakers as they examine the circumstances surrounding the dismissals of eight United States attorneys.

But the Arizona case has reached all the way from the Navajo reservation to the halls of Congress, part of a still-stewing dispute within the Justice Department over a critical law enforcement question: Should interviews with criminal suspects be tape-recorded?

Paul K. Charlton, the United States attorney in Arizona, was ousted after spending months protesting a Federal Bureau of Investigation policy that, for practical purposes, forbids the taping of almost all confessions, in stark contrast to the practice of many local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and other locations across the country.

….

Arizona USA firng

Terry Olson @
58

Ed Schultz will be on Niel Cavuto at 4:00. I think that’s CNN.

Cavuto is Faux Noise.

It is very telling in an uncomfortable way, that of the three “best” news programs on the air today, one is hosted by a former sportscaster who still dabbles in sports and the other two are on Comedy Central.

I gave up on CNN the day Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper showed up in Aaron Brown’s chair.

Per Cheney: Members of Congress are “Self-appointed strategists”. Ain’t that sweet.

It IS getting hard to tell the difference between CNN and FOX. CNN has had John Bolton on numerous times in the last 7 days – unchallenged and, apparently, tom delay is soon to be on the payroll. Suzanne Malveaux just said this re: Reid’s plan to cut funding if chimp vetoes: “i don’t think any democrat will back this, i mean, who is going to back this losing strategy?” (not a direct quote but close)

Malveaux called Reid’s proposal “a political stunt.” The last time I remember that phrase used so promptly, it was angry Frist talking about Reid’s shutdown of Senate business. Why, I ask you, is nothing the GOP does ever characterized as a political stunt?

Has anybody noticed neocon bias on C-SPAN of late? Just in this past few days:
-interviewer of Jeremy Scahill on Blackwater book was a DOD apologist.
-WJ guest discussing D prez candidates was from National Review.
-WJ guest discussing R prez candidates had worked for Buchanan IIRC.

Jane’s got some new threadiness up top….

I really like Helen and I am so sorry she did that ;(

Thanks Teddy for exposing this.

(I didn’t see mention of any prominent dems in Linton’s column– I only saw Fenty mentioned)

LS @ 76

Per Cheney: Members of Congress are “Self-appointed strategists”. Ain’t that sweet.

Someone has to have a strategy since Bush/Cheney do not.

martha @ 71:

Thanks, I thought I may have been mis-reading it. This in my opinion is at least as big as the MA v EPA decision.

Badwater @ 81

LS @ 76

Per Cheney: Members of Congress are “Self-appointed strategists”. Ain’t that sweet.

Someone has to have a strategy since Bush/Cheney do not.

Oh, and by the way: Who appointed shooter to anything but the waiting list?

realworld @ 82

martha @ 71:

Thanks, I thought I may have been mis-reading it. This in my opinion is at least as big as the MA v EPA decision.

I completely agree…in some ways bigger, given that it may have more immediate impacts on specific areas of the country. The problem is, they tossed it back to the lower courts. Who knows what will happen then.

Tweety is acting disgusted with big campaign contributions and yet he owns the platform that could provide an even view of all candidates regardless of their cash reserves..

CNN’s Suzanne Monrove (sp?) just asked viewers the rhetorical question: “Is Speaker Nancy Pelosi overstepping her bounds in the mideast” and assuming too much power in some of her fellow democrats minds, she says with a grave tone of voice. CNN is increasingly morphing into FOX by drips and drabs. Sigh. Am gonna spotlight Teddy’s post just for her if I can figure out how to do it. aghhhhhhhh!

Helen Thomas, why? I am trying to figure out what’s so funny and hilarious about Saddam Hussein’s botched, quite possibly criminal execution. I guess I am not one of the DC in-clubs.

Edwards fundraising stats:
Total raised: Over $14 million (nearly twice what we raised this quarter last time around)
Total contributors: 40,000, representing every state of the union
Grassroots victory: 80 percent of all contributions were $100 or less

mui @ 87

Helen Thomas, why? I am trying to figure out what’s so funny and hilarious about Saddam Hussein’s botched, quite possibly criminal execution. I guess I am not one of the DC in-clubs.

ditto.

FYI .. New thread upstairs

TeddySanFran@77:
“Why, I ask you, is nothing the GOP does ever characterized as a political stunt?”

You mean, like the time-outs during the Sampson hearing the other day?

…Speaking of political stunts, tell me again why impeachment is not on the table… something to do with we’re not hollering loud enough yet?

thank you Teddy … I learn everyday here

Howard Kurtz: I’m not a big fan of these dinners, but I guess I don’t understand what was “disgusting” and “shameful” about it. You seem to regard Rove as the enemy and feel there should be absolutely no fraternization at any time under any circumstances. As for David Gregory’s role, he was plucked out of the audience by these two not-terribly-funny comedians, as was Brian Williams. I doubt they would have volunteered for this distasteful duty.

Ahem. Does he listen to himself?

Heard today on Hardball that Mitt Romney has a great singing voice! Maybe his next job should be in showbiz!

I remember Kitty Kelly writing about this in the shortlived DC tabloid, NewsWorks, back in the 1970s. I mean the White House provides their little gaggle of press corpscritters with all the things/thingies they need to get the message out. Stories? I bet Helen has a million of them.