WolfeNotes.com

[Update: 8/3/11 – Wow! Check out this photo. Obama signing bill into law all alone – a picture really speaks volumes. Compare that to several other bill signing ceremony pictures – See: The Shame Sets In ]

Obama all alone – the shame setting in

A little commented on aspect of the Obama so called hostage deal relates to deep cuts in clean energy funding.

Clean energy is allegedly a very high priority of the Administration in terms of infrastructure, energy policy, job creation, technological innovation, and global warming.

Nonetheless, Obama threw clean energy under the bus, along with the New Deal framework and War On Poverty Social Safety Net programs. And for nothing in return.

Are we on track for the kind of change you support? (photo: Wolfe)

According to a summary of the deal by VP Biden’s former economic advisor:

$1 trillion in cuts in discretionary spending over 10 years

What does that mean? It refers to the non-entitlements in the budget: defense and non-defense programs where dollar amounts are appropriated every year. On the non-defense side, it’s transportation, education and training, child care, housing assistance, health research, energy.

From a jobs perspective, a lot of infrastructure and investment in stuff like clean energy comes out of this part of the budget.

And that doesn’t describe additional likely discretionary spending cuts to EPA.

This just may have outdone our good Governor Christie, who we have blasted for similar reckless cuts.

But this so called extorted hostage “deal” (NY Times editorial: “nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists“) isn’t even Obama’s worst so far.

Obama’s far more substantial dirty deal – and killing the New Deal is a pretty huge dirty deal to surpass – was in Copenhagen.

Don’t forget that Obama derailed any possibility of government based collective global climate action – dooming the planet to tipping point warming. See:

Obama’s Copenhagen Speech: The Collapse of a Deal?

This “deal” is just further addition to the mountain of evidence that the political system is broken and can not be reformed from within or via electoral processes.

As I wrote in the original post launching this blog:

As political scientist Sheldon Wolin wrote in Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (excellent review here), our democratic institutions have been hijacked by corporate interests and our Republic transformed to a global empire.

And there is little indication that the Obama “change” is anything more than rhetoric. According to a Wolin interview in Chris Hedges’s new book Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (Hedges interview here). Hedges wrote:

“The basic systems are going to stay in place; they are too powerful to be challenged.” Wolin to me when I asked him about the Obama administration. “This is shown by the financial bailout. It does not bother with the structure at all. I don’t think Obama can take on the kid of military establishment we have developed. This is not to say that I do not admire him. I think he is well meaning, but he inherits a system of constraints that make it very difficult to take on these major power configurations. I do not think he has the appetite for it in any ideological sense. The corporate structure is not going to be challenged. There has not been a word from him that would suggest an attempt to rethink the American imperium.”

The only way out is old fashioned movement politics, fueled by direct action and civil disobedience.

Mario Savio – Speech in Sproul Plaza (Berkeley, December 2, 1964)  (watch it)

And that, that brings me to the second mode of civil disobedience. There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.

NY Times Writes About “Last Chance Tourism”

Glacier NP (photo Bill Wolfe)

I guess the disappearance of glaciers due to climate change is now a real mainstream issue, because the NY Times travel section is on the story, keeping their elite global trekking tourists up to date on the latest events.

But maybe not.

With superb photography, in a story focusing on the spectacular beauty of Glacier National Park, the Times  laments having to engage in what they call “last chance tourism” (see “Twilight of the Glaciers“.

We are truly moved by the exertions and crocodile tears of self described “urban day hiker” Times journalist Stephen P. Nash. It must have been a tough assignment no other Times writers wanted. I’m sure all the senior writers and outdoor photographers wanted to go to Afghanistan or Yemen.

We too – on two pilgrimages – have tasted the huckleberries at elevation and pondered disappearing glaciers of that glorious National Park.

We too wrote about those experiences and posted our photographs – for some great pics and analysis, see:

• Report: Glaciers Disappearing From Glacier National Park (April 9, 2010)
• Glacier National Park (December 22, 2009)

But, unlike the NY Times, we explicitly warned readers – without “balance”, equivocation and obfuscation – of the known cause of glacial retreat – which is man made global warming.

Downplaying that issue, the Times writer described the science of global warming and glacier melt as “preliminary”  (what the fuck? preliminary? By a travel page writer?!).

Reinforcing wingnuty views, the Times was careful to couch the glacial retreat as part of “natural variation“. The Times story used the word “inexorable“, which supports an inference that it is unstoppable and there’s nothing we can do about it:

The day before, I had spoken with Daniel Fagre, who coordinates climate change and glacial geology studies here for the United States Geological Survey. He is a 20-year veteran of research at the park. The retreat of the glaciers began around 1850, he said, as part of a slow, natural climatic variation, but the disappearing act has accelerated during the last hundred years. Until recently, his research projected that, as global warming hit its stride, the park’s glaciers would all be gone by the year 2030. Now he thinks it may be as soon as 2020.

Outsize snows this past winter, which kept many park roads and trails closed well into July, could briefly forestall the meltdown, but the longer warming trend is inexorable, he said.

No reprieve? “No, I think we are continuing on that path” he said.

The science is preliminary, but it’s clear that this loss will be more than aesthetic for the park’s ecosystem, he said. Those glacial reservoirs provide a steady supply of cool meltwater through hot summers and dry spells, helping to sustain a constellation of  plants and animals, some rare” – big-horned sheep, elk and mountain goats among them.

Worse, the Times showed deference to the religious views of global warming deniers.

In fact, the Times’ story lent greater prominence and more clarity to those views.

Specifically, the story preceded the few buried paragraphs about the “preliminary” science with a description of the global warming denial religious views of the locals (you know, “locals”, the people those worldy Times travel writers call “folks”):

As I rested I heard women’s voices come from up the trail, sounding like an exuberant traveling book group. They seemed delighted to find a sprawled, worn-out guy to greet in passing. “How do you like it? This is our backyard!” the leader announced, adding that they were from Kalispell, Mont., just southwest of the park. I responded in superlatives, and asked whether folks here talk much about what’s happening with the glaciers.

There was a pause and the temperature seemed to decline a degree or two. “God will take care of everything we need,” one said.

“I don’t think man has anything to do with that,” her friend put in.

(A bartender at one of the lodges, not-authorized-to-speak-publicly-on-the-matter, confided that not all locals share these views.)

This is the kind of bullshit equivocation by the media that enables – even empowers – the global warming deniers.

The NY Times Travel Page is written for an elite audience. If that class of readers must be spoonfed this bullshit, you know something is seriously wrong.

And not only at the NY Times (ironically, an institution itself experiencing a decline akin to “The Twilight of the Glaciers”).