The UN's new envoy to Haiti: Bill Clinton.

The linked article says he will be named a UN special envoy on, rather than to, Haiti. The distinction is rather important: an envoy to a nation represents the sending government or organization to the government of that nation, an envoy on a given subject represents the sending government or organization to other governments and organizations in discussions concerning the topic which is envoy's assigned portfolio.

The Supreme Court, in yet another 5-4 ruling, concluded that "former attorney general John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller may not be sued by Arab Muslims who were seized in this country after the 2001 terrorist attacks and allege harsh treatment because of their religion and ethnicity." For more, check out Gary Farber's piece on Javaid Iqbal.

Roberts and Alito will be Bush's last and longest lasting F-U to the country. The next 20 or so years of conservative Supreme Court decisions will harm us in ways that are difficult to overstate. Not only will they render acceptable Bush's abuses but a whole host of civil liberties will be placed at risk.

According to congressional briefings, Pakistan is adding to its nuclear arsenal, which doesn't make any sense given its problems with a Taliban insurgency.

But it does make sense if their goal is to bribe more 'no strings' attached money out of the US.

"New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming, sources said Monday."

Feh. True, car requirements increased significantly. But truck standards did not. All we will see are more vehicles that look eerily similar to cars but qualify as trucks.

Glacier pace won't save the glaciers...

"New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming, sources said Monday."

Hansen, who runs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, believes that CO2 levels already exceed those that would provide long-term safety, and the world needs not just to stop but to reverse course. Although his view is far from universal, a growing number of scientists agree that the CO2 challenge is even greater than had previously been thought.

Several recent studies, for example, indicate that it may be exceedingly difficult to cool the climate down from any eventual peak or plateau, no matter what CO2 concentration is chosen as a target by the international community. And by looking at the problem in a new sort of way — by tallying the total amount of carbon injected into the atmosphere across human history — two papers in this issue of Nature reveal how close the world has come to the danger point...

What they found surprised them. CO2 levels subsided so slowly that they remained substantially above pre-industrial levels 1,000 years into the future. Global temperatures also stayed up, and had declined only slightly from their peak by the year 3000. In fact the simulations ended before temperatures dropped anywhere close to their starting point.

Some say the world will end in fire...
Some global warming deniers say ice,
From what I've tasted of the debate,
I hold with those who argue ire...

Looky:

The bottom line is Democracy just wasn't up to the challenge. I really hate to say that. But ultimately it is truth. The time to act was 10-15 years ago. But all we have had for the last 20 years is a political food fight. Pure do-nothing ire.

Thirty percent better gas mileage in 2016? That's pissing into the winds of a global warming inspired hurricane.

Why even bother?
Let the cowboys enjoy their pickups. Get out and enjoy the world while you can. It will be gone to hell in 30 years or so, and it won't be coming back anytime soon...

It's not often I get to say this, even on blog comment threads, but "I'm with Bubba." The new CAFE standards are easily the most Clintonesque thing I have seen Obama do. Soon we will see an even greater intensification of the 90's trend of turning all car owners into light truck owners.

Prediction: the 9% increase in light truck standards will be exactly the mileage increase we achieve over the seven years.

It is truly worse than leaving things as is - at least the threat of separate California standards could have a beneficial impact. Now even that is gone.

Once and for all...dealing with the repercussions and fall out from past behavior is not looking backwards...it is accountability. The only way to leave the past behind is to resolve it.

Obama must face up to being responsible and stop preventing the DoJ to do its job...investigate and prosecute the laws.

The terrorists win if we refuse to face our own hypocrisy...no one is above the law no matter how hard we try to ignore it. Sadly enough, many law breakers made friends sad and regretful, who wished they would not have to pay for their crimes but know they must because they broke the law.

Our hypocrisy is allowing some to be above the law while prosecuting others who break it.

There is no one even denying Pelosi's claim except to say "it is not our policy to mislead congress"...not that they didn't do it and Pelosi is lying, just that it is not their policy to do it. That arrangement of words should validate Pelosi's claims.

"* 42 mpg: "New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming, sources said Monday.""

But,,,,, wil Congress stick to the table. Someone, please tell when one these previous bills( mpg by certain date) has ever been followed through to it's end goal(42mpg)?

dollared,

"The new CAFE standards are easily the most Clintonesque thing I have seen Obama do. Soon we will see an even greater intensification of the 90's trend of turning all car owners into light truck owners."

That entire gaming of SUVs as light trucks occurred prior to the Clinton administration. Don't base an argument on a RightWing propaganda talking point.

*

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) is on board with Henry Waxman's sweeping climate change bill. Good for Dingell.

If Dingell is on board, then WTF with Stabenow? We know Bayh and Nelson haven't got an active brain cell between them, but what's her excuse??
If "Mr. Auto Industry" gets it, that means anybody can, since he's been the one bottling it up for the past 40 years.

Environmentalists also praised the move. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it "one of the most significant efforts undertaken by any president, ever, to end our addiction to oil and seriously slash our global warming emissions."

If Carl Pope is on board with the mileage requirement, then I'm feeling better about it. ?what they should do is legislate that SUVs are to be considered "cars" for mileage. Then those ugly-ass Republicanmobiles will go the way of the Dinosaurs like they should.

42 mpg: "New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming, sources said Monday."

That's good. It is also a little lower rate of improvement per year than the 4% proposed by G.W. Bush a few years ago. Bush proposed it for all vehicle classes, but the current rule emphasizes vehicles that are already the most fuel efficient, and proposes a lower rate of improvement for the less fuel-efficient pickup trucks.

However, as the fuel mix changes, the agreement will have to be modified. If the federal standard for ethanol in gasoline increases from 10% to 15%, as proposed, then the rules will have to permit fewer miles per gallon for such fuel than today's agreed rules.

I'm pleased. A modest change to a proposal made by Pres. Bush a few years ago is the sort of change that I can believe in. It fits the theme of Obama's changes with regard to national security.

The Supreme Court, in yet another 5-4 ruling, concluded that "former attorney general John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller may not be sued by Arab Muslims who were seized in this country after the 2001 terrorist attacks and allege harsh treatment because of their religion and ethnicity."

Wow, that is a horribly written lead from the WaPo. SCOTUS did *not* rule that Ashcroft et al cannot be sued; instead, they found that not enough evidence had been provided to go further with the suit. While imo they certainly overreached, they did not dismiss the suit with prejudice, and in fact the lawyers intend to resubmit with additional evidence to support their claims.

According to congressional briefings, Pakistan is adding to its nuclear arsenal, which doesn't make any sense given its problems with a Taliban insurgency.

The Pak gvmt's "problems" with the so-called "Taliban insurgency" are vastly overblown by the MSM and Western gvmts. See Juan Cole for more info.

After 25 years, the Tamil Tiger rebels have admitted defeat.

Steve, the source you link to says no such thing. An oppressive, racist gvmt claiming military victory over an oppressed minority is not the same as the oppressed minority admitting defeat. In fact, from the article:

Suren Surendiran, a spokesman for the British Tamils' Forum, the largest organization for expatriate Tamils in Britain, said the community was in despair.

"The people are very somber and very saddened. But we are ever determined and resilient to continue our struggle for Eelam," he said, invoking the name of the Tamils hoped-for independent state. "We have to win the freedom and liberation of our people."

It's bad enough that the West has all but ignored the plight of the Tamils since 48. You could at least accurately report on them now.

*
Posted by: mhr on May 18, 2009 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK
*******************************************

mhr, that was one of the stupidest things you've ever said, and that's pretty impressive, coming from you. Keep it up, repig. That way we all know who you are and what you're about.

MatthewRMarler, we all know that what Pres W said was never what he actually did.

So, can we compare the standards W passed, or put to Congress, not just some stump speech somewhere?

Longtime follower of Kevin Drum, Ezra Klein, and you, Steve.

Very interesting to me reading Ezra today. I think he is copying the Washington Monthly business model and working his ass off.

Anyways, I hope you are all being paid well. And thank you (all 3) for the knowledgeable and insightful posts.

The American Conservative has an interesting article on the potential for a two-state solution under Bibi Netanyahu; you can read it here - http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/may/18/00014/

A lot of the newer SUV's, such as the Ford Escape and my own Hyundai Santa Fe, are just trucklike bodies on a car chassis. There's no reason they shouldn't be subject to the same mileage restrictions as cars, since the goal is eminently achievable. The latest variant of the Porsche Cayenne is pretty much there already.

For years I railed against SUV's, to the disgust of my friends who loved them. I only bought one (that isn't really an SUV at all) because I reasoned that anything new would burn less gas than the Chrysler Intrepid I was driving. Newer engines are more efficient and cleaner, and getting better all the time.

Unfortunately, most of the good that does is eclipsed by the growing number of vehicles on the road.

I'm pleased. A modest change to a proposal made by Pres. Bush a few years ago is the sort of change that I can believe in.

Bush also made empty promises about a manned mission to Mars and a nation full of people driving hydrogen cars.

So if Obama actually gets us to Venus and dramatically raises fuel standards, by your logic he'll be precisely half the man Bush was.

They now have online courses where you can take a basic introduction to statistics, or in this case, set theory. I feel just awful for your employer.

If 42 mpg by 2016 is the best we can do in terms of mileage standards then we are screwed.

So, can we compare the standards W passed, or put to Congress, not just some stump speech somewhere?

It was the State of the Union Address. The proposal was criticized because it proposed the 4% reduction in each vehicle class, which might encourage people to buy bigger vehicles. The Bush administration was partly responsible for the current glut of ethanol, including some of the demonstration and commercial cellulosic ethanol plants (the famous "switchgrass", though little is actually from switchgrass), which is what makes it possible for the current Congress to consider seriously raising the ethanol standard for gasoline.

Set theory, eh? Not a bad idea.

Environmentalists also praised the move. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it "one of the most significant efforts undertaken by any president, ever, to end our addiction to oil and seriously slash our global warming emissions."

When Bush proposed the 4% annual increase in fuel economy standards, Republicans didn't care that much about fuel economy, and those who did care about fuel economy said that his 4% per year increase was not enough. Now the Republicans still don't care about fuel economy, but there are fewer Republicans, and the people who do care about fuel economy are happy about a standard that is lower than Bush proposed.

If the fuel economy boosters in Congress had been willing to accede to this standard, it could have been adopted 3 years ago.

But, ..., better late than never.

optimistic recent review of problems and prospects in biofuels:

http://gas2.org/2009/05/15/biofuel-industry-hopes-to-recover-with-next-generation-fuels/

and the people who do care about fuel economy are happy about a standard that is lower than Bush proposed

Once again, the difference is between non-existent programs and real programs. I know the difference between the two eludes you.

It's like the difference between non-existent WMDs and real WMDs. Or the difference between unbuilt desalination plants and functioning ones. Or an infrastructure in Iraq that was being attacked daily by insurgents and the one in your mind that was being kept pristine for when they took over!

Do you see a pattern?

Just a sidebar to the paragraphs in Draper's excellent GQ article discussing Rumsfeld's refusal to send U.S. search-and-rescue helicopters to New Orleans after it flooded:

(NY Times, Sept. 7, 2005, by David S. Cloud)

Navy Pilots Who Rescued Victims Are Reprimanded.

PENSACOLA, Fla., Sept. 6 - Two Navy helicopter pilots and their crews returned from New Orleans on Aug. 30 expecting to be greeted as lifesavers after ferrying more than 100 hurricane victims to safety.

Instead, their superiors chided the pilots, Lt. David Shand and Lt. Matt Udkow, at a meeting the next morning for rescuing civilians when their assignment that day had been to deliver food and water to military installations along the Gulf Coast.

"I felt it was a great day because we resupplied the people we needed to and we rescued people, too," Lieutenant Udkow said. But the air operations commander at Pensacola Naval Air Station "reminded us that the logistical mission needed to be our area of focus."

The episode illustrates how the rescue effort in the days immediately after Hurricane Katrina had to compete with the military's other, more mundane logistical needs.

Only in recent days, after the federal response to the disaster has come to be seen as inadequate, have large numbers of troops and dozens of helicopters, trucks and other equipment been poured into to the effort. Early on, the military rescue operations were smaller, often depending on the initiative of individuals like Lieutenants Shand and Udkow.

The two lieutenants were each piloting a Navy H-3 helicopter - a type often used in rescue operations as well as transport and other missions - on that Tuesday afternoon, delivering emergency food, water and other supplies to Stennis Space Center, a federal facility near the Mississippi coast. The storm had cut off electricity and water to the center, and the two helicopters were supposed to drop their loads and return to Pensacola, their home base, said Cmdr. Michael Holdener, Pensacola's air operations chief.

"Their orders were to go and deliver water and parts and to come back," Commander Holdener said.

But as the two helicopters were heading back home, the crews picked up a radio transmission from the Coast Guard saying helicopters were needed near the University of New Orleans to help with rescue efforts, the two pilots said.

Out of range for direct radio communication with Pensacola, more than 100 miles to the east, the pilots said, they decided to respond and turned their helicopters around, diverting from their mission without getting permission from their home base. Within minutes, they were over New Orleans.

"We're not technically a search-and-rescue unit, but we're trained to do search and rescue," said Lieutenant Shand, a 17-year Navy veteran.

Flying over Biloxi and Gulfport and other areas of Mississippi, they could see rescue personnel on the ground, Lieutenant Udkow said, but he noticed that there were few rescue units around the flooded city of New Orleans, on the ground or in the air. "It was shocking," he said.

Seeing people on the roofs of houses waving to him, Lieutenant Udkow headed in their direction. Hovering over power lines, his crew dropped a basket to pick up two residents at a time. He took them to Lakefront Airport, where local emergency medical teams had established a makeshift medical center.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant Shand landed his helicopter on the roof of an apartment building, where more than a dozen people were marooned. Women and children were loaded first aboard the helicopter and ferried to the airport, he said.

Returning to pick up the rest, the crew learned that two blind residents had not been able to climb up through the attic to the roof and were still in the building. Two crew members entered the darkened building to find the men, and led them to the roof and into the helicopter, Lieutenant Shand said.

Recalling the rescues in an interview, he became so emotional that he had to stop and compose himself. At one point, he said, he executed a tricky landing at a highway overpass, where more than 35 people were marooned.

Lieutenant Udkow said that he saw few other rescue helicopters in New Orleans that day. The toughest part, he said, was seeing so many people imploring him to pick them up and having to leave some.

"I would be looking at a family of two on one roof and maybe a family of six on another roof, and I would have to make a decision who to rescue," he said. "It wasn't easy."

While refueling at a Coast Guard landing pad in early evening, Lieutenant Udkow said, he called Pensacola and received permission to continue rescues that evening. According to the pilots and other military officials, they rescued 110 people.

The next morning, though, the two crews were called to a meeting with Commander Holdener, who said he told them that while helping civilians was laudable, the lengthy rescue effort was an unacceptable diversion from their main mission of delivering supplies. With only two helicopters available at Pensacola to deliver supplies, the base did not have enough to allow pilots to go on prolonged search and rescue operations.

"We all want to be the guys who rescue people," Commander Holdener said. "But they were told we have other missions we have to do right now and that is not the priority."

The order to halt civilian relief efforts angered some helicopter crews. Lieutenant Udkow, who associates say was especially vocal about voicing his disagreement to superiors, was taken out of the squadron's flying rotation temporarily and assigned to oversee a temporary kennel established at Pensacola to hold pets of service members evacuated from the hurricane-damaged areas, two members of the unit said. Lieutenant Udkow denied that he had complained and said he did not view the kennel assignment as punishment.

Dozens of military aircraft are now conducting search and rescue missions over the affected areas. But privately some members of the Pensacola unit say the base's two available transport helicopters should have been allowed to do more to help civilian victims in the days after the storm hit, when large numbers of military helicopters had not reached the affected areas.

In protest, some members of the unit have stopped wearing a search and rescue patch on their sleeves that reads, "So Others May Live."

(I still contend that the Bush administration deliberately withheld federal disaster aid from New Orleans so that their (Karl Rove's) smear campaign against the Louisiana governor and New Orleans mayor, both Democrats, for being incompetent would be more effective).

trex,

the on-again-off-again Carlsbad desalination plant is "on again":

http://www.newsday.com/business/nationworld/sns-ap-us-calif-desalination-plant,0,970867.story

However, the Surfrider foundation has two more suits against it, so who knows when construction might start. As they said before, construction could start by the end of this year. There are 20 desalination plants planned for the California coast. It appears that the Surfrider foundation opposes all of them.

Stay tuned.

Matt

Watch as I once again blithely skip over someone's reminder that I'm a compulsive liar and pretend that the conversation on the subject of one of my confirmed lies has just started.

If you refuse not to see it, it doesn't exist. Trust me on this. Life is much easier this way.

MatthewRMarler, no one buys your pretense as an honest commenter -- especially given your contortions to try to prove your assertion that Obama would continue Bush's policies.

You aren't fooling anyone. Shame on you.

I'm not clear on how the Surfrider Foundation retroactively caused Matthew to flatly lie about the status of the desalination plant. That must be one magic environmental group.

Oh, I see. Marler is once again trying to move the conversational goalposts after he got caught in yet another whopper.