AMA Now Believes that Marijuana Has Medical Value
Hemp Vs. Marijuana: What’s the Difference?
Uses of Hemp
William Randolph Hearst (scroll down to “Yellow Journalism” and “War on Marijuana”)
Follow Mean Joe Green on Twitter at @GreenCartoons
In the late-night aftermath of a too-close-for-comfort 220-215 vote, House Democrat leaders and the White House hailed the passage of a health care bill that would cover more than 35 million uninsured Americans while introducing a limited public option and adding restrictions on discrimination against insurance applicants with preexisting conditions. But, not everyone - not the entire Democratic caucus or even some of its most active interest groups - praised the bill, which included an amendment that codifies the so-called “Hyde Amendment,” and would restrict the use of federal funds for abortion coverage.
The parallels to the House’s Waxman-Markey climate bill - which passed in June in the face of opposition from green stalwarts and Democratic political players like Greenpeace - are significant, and it begs the question: are progressives on board with all of this “progress?” The vote that one House Dem took on the bill is already becoming an issue in the Massachusetts special Senate election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. The issue is proving to be the first real policy distinction among four candidates for the seat, and Democrats facing re-elction nationwide in 2010 can now expect Stupak-Pitts and abortion to become a potential anti-incumbency lever.
Progress or Politics?
Presumably, a year ago, as progressives basked in the victory-with-a-mandate of the nation’s first truly progressive president since FDR, they would not have settled for a health care bill that the chairwoman of the House Pro-Choice Caucus called “the biggest restriction of a woman’s right to choose that will be considered on the House floor in my career.” Likewise, they could not have anticipated that they would be left to cheer for a climate bill that not only includes huge subsidies for coal companies and nuclear plants and expansion of offshore drilling, but also does not auction carbon credits under its cap-and-trade program, instead handing the credits as allowances to utilities and other major carbon emitters.
Call it what you like - genuine progress, an important Trojan Horse, political spin - but walking back from hardcore progressive initiatives might have real political consequences as 2010’s mid-term elections approach.
The Known Enemy - GOP Sharpening Attacks and Piling Up Ammo
Of course, the GOP will be taking dead aim at Dems across the country, branding them as government expansionists who have increased the federal debt and mismanaged the financial crisis through free-spending programs like Cash for Clunkers. But, the parrallels to the the 2003 BTU Tax vote also cannot be underestimated.
The House vote on that bill - which put Dems in the lower chamber out there on a somewhat controversial issue in spite of the fact that the Senate never came close to taking a similar vote, and therefore the measure had no chance of becoming law - is often given partial credit for driving the Republican Revolution of 1994. Like ‘94, there is not much evidence that the Senate will be able to pass - or perhaps even vote or move out of committee - a bill that approaches many of the issues that the House rules allowed Speaker Pelosi to put on the floor and take to a vote. Facing high Congressional disapproval already, House Dems are already tacking on the challenges of a still-flagging economy that just breached 10% unemployment, a figure that promises to continue rising right through 2010’s election season. Now they must also defend their vote for this health care bill against GOP challengers. The politics will play out, but there is the chance that the razor’s edge health care vote violated one of the first rules of Washington: never take an unnecessary vote.
A New Enemy Within? Greens, Gay Rights, Pro-Choicers and Peaceniks
More than in 1994 though, Democrats in Congress might be facing backlash from both sides as 2010 advances. The climate bill’s “giveaways” alone would not have been enough to energize hardcore progressives to unseat sitting Democrats, but add in the escalation in Afghanistan; a lack of progress on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell;” and, now the health care vote and its abortion amendment and Democratic leaders may have done just enough to instigate a mutiny that unites the four most active and important political power players within the party: greens, gay rights groups, anti-war advocates and pro-choice women’s interests.
In other words, it is not inconceivable that by splitting the baby (turning John Kerry’s famous phrase on its head, many Dems from deep blue states voted against the anti-abortion amendment before they voted for the bill), Democrats who were already vulnerable have made themselves beatable.
Speaking on CNN after Dems lost the Governors’ mansions in Virginia and New Jersey, but prior to passage of the House bill, Democratic political guru James Carville noted that Democrats might “lose both chambers” if they could not pass a healthy care bill in this session. The father of one of this generation’s most famous political aphorisms (”its the economy, stupid”) may have proven to be a soothsayer yet again. Although, I’m not sure even Carville saw this coming.
Massachusetts is the Test Race - Are Democrats Divided?
If the Stupak-Pitts amendment is an issue that plays with the progressives and gives some daylight for potential challenges from the left side of the party, Massachusetts will be an early - if imperfect - example. Can Congressman Capuano - who voted against the amendment and for the bill - survive an attack on that vote from state Attorney General Martha Coakley?
One startling aspect of the burgeoning Democrat in-fighting is that it was only this past weekend, amid the ouster of the Republican candidate in the special New York 23rd Congressional election (at the urging of establishment GOPers like Palin and Pawlenty) that observers were asking whether there was a fatal schism on the right. Now the question may be turning on its head.
What should not be surprising to anyone is that as major issues in Massachusetts politics and national health care play out, the legacy of Ted Kennedy continues to loom large.
Flickr photo used under a Creative Commons license from BarackObama.com
In a bid to clarify its official stance and pressurize the developed countries ahead of the next month’s Copenhagen climate talks the Indian Prime Minister announced ambitious domestic mitigation measures while meeting with EU representatives in New Delhi. The measures include new and tougher efficiency standards for industries and incentives to encourage clean industrial practices.
The move is widely seen as a pressure tactic as India will oppose all demands for accepting mandatory emission reduction targets at the Copenhagen talks. With developed countries still struggling to come up with substantial measures, India’s announcement has added fire power to the developing countries stance. Read the rest of this entry »
Rule #1: Resort to name calling/labeling
Rule #2: Never consider the other side’s motivation
Rule #3: Refer to rule 1 and 2.
I wish these folks were protesting the end result of the actual chain of events that will lead to their future joblessness, which is:
Decreasing demand for coal (due to health concerns for earthlings and earth)=lost jobs for coal miners=find another similar job to suit your skills=can’t because factory jobs have long been shipped overseas to skirt environmental regulations and to exploit cheaper labor=PICKET THAT!–picket lost middle class jobs, the shrinking middle class, and the growing disparity between the rich and poor!
These good people have a right to be angry–but not at the “Treehuggers” who want to put an end to our dependence on fossil fuels. Their hostility needs to be directed at the coal (throw in oil, plastic, and biotech) industry fat cats who have long made billions while poisoning the world (poisoning the world poisons those who live in said world).
Follow Mean Joe Green on Twitter at @GreenCartoons
The world has been talking about the proactive measures announced by China in order to reduce its carbon emissions, increase renewable energy use and improve energy efficiency. But its neighbor, India, too is now is in a remarkable transition from an environmental underdog one who projected itself as a weak and helpless sufferer of the natural calamities that the changing climate threatens to bring in the future.
With changing international scenarios the domestic policies of India changed as well. With the change in Washington, many developing countries changed their stance and announced slew of proactive measures which they had fiercely opposed in the past. Even though they all are still opposed to mandatory emission reduction targets they have announced forest conservation plans as well as massive renewable energy projects. Read the rest of this entry »
The spookiest news I’ve heard so far this Halloween is the report from Politico.com that the seven Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will boycott next Tuesday’s planned markup of the Kerry-Boxer climate legislation. Ah yes, the “screw you guys, I’m going home” tactic. How productive. Read the rest of this entry »
Last week I wrote in this space that when faced with a problem (global warming, carbon dioxide emissions) that so clearly requires huge top-down action from governments the world over, what two contrarians write in a book doesn’t exactly bother me that much. It bothers Joe Romm at Climate Progress, clearly, and now, well, I’ve got even less company, because members of Congress are pissed off too. Read the rest of this entry »
Only 2% of companies are covered by the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, but that 2% represents 70% of US emissions, says Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), the bill’s co-sponsor. Read the rest of this entry »
I think Bill may be a bit confused about Apple’s success…
Follow Mean Joe Green on Twitter at @GreenCartoons
In the recent few days the Indian government has struggled to clearly state its official stand on the issue of reducing carbon emissions. While the traditional stance has been to oppose any mandatory emission targets, their has been a drastic change in this policy with indications of a domestic emissions reduction law and other proactive mitigation measures. The situation worsened after the environment minister, in an informal letter to the Prime Minister, said that India needs to move away from its traditional stance accept a far more responsible role at the international arena.
Mr. Jairam Ramesh, while expressing his personal views, advised Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh that India needs to be more proactive in reducing its carbon emissions. He said that India needs to work beyond the issue of differential responsibility, which incidentally has been central to India’s opposition to mandatory emission cuts. The minister wrote that India should play the role of a deal maker and not a deal breaker. He added that by accepting greater responsibility India would gain strategic leverage at the international forums possibly paving way for India’s successful bid for an place in the UN Security Council. Read the rest of this entry »
Red, Green, and Blue is a Green Options Media Production.
Some Rights Reserved
