Sunday, January 06, 2013
Truest statement of the week
And last but certainly not least, we have President Obama's apparently favored choice for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, offering up one of the most, if not the most, blatantly unbelievable non-apologies when he decided, after 14 years of silence, to finally apologize for his repulsive anti-gay remarks about the first openly gay American ambassador, James Hormel, but only after President Obama started floating his name as a potential Secretary of Defense. And even then Hagel couldn't actually admit that his comments were wrong, saying that he just feels that they were "insensitive."
-- Wayne Anderson, "2013: The Year of the Anti-Gay Non-Apology" (Huffington Post).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
Wayne Anderson gets it this week.
Hagel's the wrong choice. That is the theme for this edition. Barack is supposedly set to nominate Hagel for Secretary of Defense tomorrow. We cover the many ways in which Hagel is wrong.
Ava and C.I. tackle last month's recess by the broadcast networks.
Hagel's not enviro-friendly.
Appointees don't always follow orders. Colin Powell didn't.
A year and nine months in a draft military doesn't really prepare you to lead today's diverse and all volunteer US military.
Phyllis Bennis wants to 'talk' Hagel but forgets to address homophobia.
A petition's gone up opposing Hagel.
We grab C.I.'s Monday snapshot (and add some photos) to have an Iraq feature this week.
Look, Senator Murray addressing serious issues involving the military. Maybe she should be named Secretary of Defense? She'd certainly be qualified (not just 'more qualified than Hagel,' qualified period.)
Repost from Great Britain's Socialist Worker.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another Sunday.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
Wayne Anderson gets it this week.
Hagel's the wrong choice. That is the theme for this edition. Barack is supposedly set to nominate Hagel for Secretary of Defense tomorrow. We cover the many ways in which Hagel is wrong.
Ava and C.I. tackle last month's recess by the broadcast networks.
Hagel's not enviro-friendly.
Appointees don't always follow orders. Colin Powell didn't.
A year and nine months in a draft military doesn't really prepare you to lead today's diverse and all volunteer US military.
Phyllis Bennis wants to 'talk' Hagel but forgets to address homophobia.
A petition's gone up opposing Hagel.
We grab C.I.'s Monday snapshot (and add some photos) to have an Iraq feature this week.
Look, Senator Murray addressing serious issues involving the military. Maybe she should be named Secretary of Defense? She'd certainly be qualified (not just 'more qualified than Hagel,' qualified period.)
Repost from Great Britain's Socialist Worker.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: The Wrong Choice
How did we get to the point where President Barack Obama might unleash Chuckie Hagel on the Defense Department?
If you missed it, supposedly Monday will find Barack nominating Chuckie to be the next Secretary of Defense. If it takes place, it will be news because a clearer statement on how little the base matters to elected Democrats will be on full display.
Hagel has an awful record.
As FloraLine pointed out at Daily Kos:
He voted six times for banning servicewomen from being able to get an abortion in military medical facilities WITH THEIR OWN MONEY even if they are stationed in countries where abortion is forbidden for civilians (and he succeeded). In twelve years' time. He also thinks pregnancies caused by rape are "irrelevant" when talking about his no-exceptions-anti-choice position because they don't happen a lot - while fully knowing that a servicewoman is twice as likely to be raped by a fellow American than a civilian is, even, and that the majority of abortions in the military are performed because the subject was raped. Hagel's past has had more than serious consequences for hundreds, if not thousands, of valuable people in the military. Many people got fired for returning home to be able to get an abortion, while many others' careers were terminated because (surprise!) literally forcing unwanted pregnancies to continue creates single moms.
One of the two biggest issues the next Secretary of Defense will have to address is the rate of assault and rape within the ranks of the US military. It's amazing, therefore, that someone who believes rape is "irrelevant" with regards to reproductive rights could even be seriously considered.
When Hagel said it was "irrelevant," he was stating that rape victims don't get pregnant. If that sounds familiar, it may be due to the fact that another Republican said that last year. He was running for the US Senate against incumbent Claire McCaskill who issued this statement, "It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape. The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive."
When Todd Akin says it, it ends up costing him a close race. When Barack's potential nominee adheres to the same 'faith,' we're all supposed to look the other way.
The other big issue the Secretary will face will be addressing the huge number of suicides among service members and veterans. Hagel has experience in that how?
There's the LGBT issues. James Kirchick (New York Daily News) points out:
President Obama campaigned for President in 2008 on a pledge to repeal DADT, a goal he achieved in 2010. While allowing open service has caused minimal disruption, shepherding a vast bureaucracy undergoing a fundamental cultural change requires great skill and sensitivity. Further challenges also lie ahead, for instance, the new secretary of defense will have to deal with the question of whether or not the partners of gay service-members should receive the same benefits as those of straight ones. It is worth asking whether Chuck Hagel is really the right man to oversee a government institution unwinding a decades-long discriminatory policy.
Hagel is not the person to lead on those issues. As Michelangelo Signorile (Huffington Post) explains, "Hagel scored a zero on the Human Rights Campaign's Senate scorecard between 2001 and 2006 (which is not that long ago), voting against pro-gay initiatives and for anti-gay ones, and was on record as opposing allowing gays to serve openly in the military (calling it a "social experiment"), let alone representing this country as ambassadors."
If it were the 20th century and not the 21st, Hagel might make an okay Secretary of Defense.
But it is the 21st century. Women now serve in the military. (And the next Secretary of Defense will impact whether or not women -- who already serve in combat 'unofficially' -- can do the same officially.) Gays and lesbians now serve openly as well. It's not the military that Chuck Hagel was briefly (less than 2 years) serving in back in the 60s.
Nothing he's done in the last 12 years has demonstrated he's stepped into the 21st century or desires to. The military must address the crisis of suicide and the crisis of assault and rape. The next Secretary of Defense matters. Chuck Hagel's not an answer, Chuck Hagel's a spare tire -- a back up you hope you never have to use.
---------------------
Illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Curse of Chuckie."
If you missed it, supposedly Monday will find Barack nominating Chuckie to be the next Secretary of Defense. If it takes place, it will be news because a clearer statement on how little the base matters to elected Democrats will be on full display.
Hagel has an awful record.
As FloraLine pointed out at Daily Kos:
He voted six times for banning servicewomen from being able to get an abortion in military medical facilities WITH THEIR OWN MONEY even if they are stationed in countries where abortion is forbidden for civilians (and he succeeded). In twelve years' time. He also thinks pregnancies caused by rape are "irrelevant" when talking about his no-exceptions-anti-choice position because they don't happen a lot - while fully knowing that a servicewoman is twice as likely to be raped by a fellow American than a civilian is, even, and that the majority of abortions in the military are performed because the subject was raped. Hagel's past has had more than serious consequences for hundreds, if not thousands, of valuable people in the military. Many people got fired for returning home to be able to get an abortion, while many others' careers were terminated because (surprise!) literally forcing unwanted pregnancies to continue creates single moms.
One of the two biggest issues the next Secretary of Defense will have to address is the rate of assault and rape within the ranks of the US military. It's amazing, therefore, that someone who believes rape is "irrelevant" with regards to reproductive rights could even be seriously considered.
When Hagel said it was "irrelevant," he was stating that rape victims don't get pregnant. If that sounds familiar, it may be due to the fact that another Republican said that last year. He was running for the US Senate against incumbent Claire McCaskill who issued this statement, "It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape. The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive."
When Todd Akin says it, it ends up costing him a close race. When Barack's potential nominee adheres to the same 'faith,' we're all supposed to look the other way.
The other big issue the Secretary will face will be addressing the huge number of suicides among service members and veterans. Hagel has experience in that how?
There's the LGBT issues. James Kirchick (New York Daily News) points out:
President Obama campaigned for President in 2008 on a pledge to repeal DADT, a goal he achieved in 2010. While allowing open service has caused minimal disruption, shepherding a vast bureaucracy undergoing a fundamental cultural change requires great skill and sensitivity. Further challenges also lie ahead, for instance, the new secretary of defense will have to deal with the question of whether or not the partners of gay service-members should receive the same benefits as those of straight ones. It is worth asking whether Chuck Hagel is really the right man to oversee a government institution unwinding a decades-long discriminatory policy.
Hagel is not the person to lead on those issues. As Michelangelo Signorile (Huffington Post) explains, "Hagel scored a zero on the Human Rights Campaign's Senate scorecard between 2001 and 2006 (which is not that long ago), voting against pro-gay initiatives and for anti-gay ones, and was on record as opposing allowing gays to serve openly in the military (calling it a "social experiment"), let alone representing this country as ambassadors."
If it were the 20th century and not the 21st, Hagel might make an okay Secretary of Defense.
But it is the 21st century. Women now serve in the military. (And the next Secretary of Defense will impact whether or not women -- who already serve in combat 'unofficially' -- can do the same officially.) Gays and lesbians now serve openly as well. It's not the military that Chuck Hagel was briefly (less than 2 years) serving in back in the 60s.
Nothing he's done in the last 12 years has demonstrated he's stepped into the 21st century or desires to. The military must address the crisis of suicide and the crisis of assault and rape. The next Secretary of Defense matters. Chuck Hagel's not an answer, Chuck Hagel's a spare tire -- a back up you hope you never have to use.
---------------------
Illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Curse of Chuckie."
TV: Recess is over
You remember recess from school. It was play time. You broke from the schedule and did what you wanted. It was a lot of fun and a taste of freedom. Made you realize how much better life would be if you weren't on someone else's schedule. In the changing TV landscape, overpaid suits working through old issues decided to program similarly. The results were not pretty.
Take Hulu where they were left to promote Family Ties as must stream media.
No offense but Family Ties? Yes, it actually has one classic episode (season's three's "Love Thy Neighbor," written by Michael J. Weithorn, Alan Uger and Rich Reinhart, where Jennifer tries to compete with Mallory for a guy's attention, contains Tina Yother's cry of "I'm fine and I'm not a little girl. Waiter, my bike!") -- but it's not really a lure. The show's been in syndication for years now and it wasn't all that in real time as it fawned over Alex Keaton and sidelined Jennifer (Yothers) and Mallory (Justine Bateman). If you weren't charmed by Michael J. Fox and were immune to the greed of Alex Keaton, the show was just tired and grating.
Despite its lackluster status, Hulu had to promote it as if it were Finding Nemo because they've had so little in the last weeks to offer as ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox all went on vacation and gave their viewers a lengthy recess.
In the past, holiday fare has often crowded out regular programing in December. But in the past, holiday fare wasn't available at your local Wal-Greens on DVD. Meaning, just how special is the second or third showing of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in one month?
Considering all the money that Christmas special has raked in from repeated showings since 1964, from videocassette and DVD sales, you'd think the networks would be all over themselves each year attempting to create a new animated special. We don't mean one of those ridiculous sequels. The specials that last were originals: Rudolph, Frosty, etc.
But that would require preparing for the future and the network suits today can't think beyond tomorrow's overnights.
The lack of long range planning goes a long way towards explaining why networks are in trouble and stuck there.
When you're bleeding viewers every year, do you encourage them to go away? Do you give them an extended recess?
We waited and waited for the Water Cooler Set to address this topic last month.
Who were we kidding?
The Water Cooler Set is scared of their own shadows. They have a pack mentality and are unable to offer an original thought.
Which is a shame because this most likely does not end pretty.
What broadcast TV is doing currently in December is what cable has long done: Take a hiatus. Broadcast TV in the fifties was expected to work and did, programming seven nights a week. Today it really can't handle six nights. And in 2012, December became hiatus month?
If the Water Cooler Set was capable of thought, maybe the network suits could picture something beyond tomorrow's overnights?
In film, as Ann and Stan pointed out in the year-in-review, the films that used to be staples are gone, the ones that deal with the family, that deal with family issues, the On Golden Ponds, the Ordinary Peoples, those are gone and few have even noticed. Broadway, as well, now has little room for the observations of life and is now basically carnival barker and juke box 'musicals.'
As the broadcast networks send the audiences away, it will have an impact on the future of TV. It will impact what airs and what doesn't air. Already, there have been disturbing developments that the Water Cooler Set couldn't be bothered with.
Harry's Law, starring Kathy Bates, delivered an audience -- especially for NBC, it delivered an audience. It's second season average was higher than all but one episode of Smash. But Harry's Law got the axe last spring and Smash was brought back. NBC's Parenthood also got renewed and Harry's Law's second season average was higher than the 12 episodes of Parenthood NBC's broadcast so far this season. NBC's new drama Chicago Fire? It has yet to have an episode with as many viewers as the season average of Harry's Law.
Now when Kathy Bates did a guest spot on Two and A Half Men as Charlie (Charlie Sheen's character), the Water Cooler Set couldn't stop yammering. But that was a 'trendy' topic. Dealing with actual TV issues? Unless critical thought comes in the goody bags the networks handed out, don't hold your breath waiting for the Water Cooler Set to discover it.
Now maybe you're okay with that. Maybe, for example, you think Broadway was created for Jersey Boys and film invented for the questionable talents of Michael Bay?
If so, get ready for a million more (bad) attempts to re-invent Lost combined with a lot of niche shows that appeal to those who make big purchases. Just don't expect anything that challenges. (Niche shows, as a rule, confirm the audiences internal prejudices while reassuring them that they are a rarefied class.) Look for 'event' TV that's the equivalent of what you're getting from Broadway and film currently.
It is amazing to us that as TV digs its own grave further and further, there is no outcry from the Water Cooler Set that is supposed to be the critic, the watchdog. There is just a rush to play Kook Kidz and act like they're part of whatever HBO fad has currently caught their fancy.
TV is not going away. Maybe they think it is? Hulu was lucky to have Hot in Cleveland and Happily Divorced (from cable's TV Land) the last few weeks or it really would have had nothing. And that's true of the people who Tivo or buy episodes from iTunes or Amazon or what have you.
No matter how it's delivered, you currently do depend on TV to foot the bill, to greenlight the show, to air it so that you can watch it on whatever platform you choose. That may change. Maybe some web show will actually break out in the near future and not be an anomaly but an actual trend? Maybe not. If or until that happens, you're left with TV.
So maybe it's time for the networks to stop strip mining and start building?
If the networks are at a loss, we'd suggest that they start by finally making an Easter special out of Du Bose Heyward and Marjorie Hack's The Country Bunny And The Little Golden Shoes. Back in a 2005 book discussion, Kat noted this 1939 classic, "The Country Bunny is a Sally Field type, plucky and feisty. She wants to be one of the Easter egg carriers. Each year, there's a contest and the fastest bunnies are selected to deliver the eggs. Although the Country Bunny is one of the fastest, she is told that it's too bad she has so many children or she could be one of the five selected." In 2010, The New Yorker noticed the book and observed that "it has never been out of print" which is quite an accomplishment for any children's book -- especially one dating back to 1939. Even a network suit should grasp you can grow an audience via a special based on that.
Take Hulu where they were left to promote Family Ties as must stream media.
No offense but Family Ties? Yes, it actually has one classic episode (season's three's "Love Thy Neighbor," written by Michael J. Weithorn, Alan Uger and Rich Reinhart, where Jennifer tries to compete with Mallory for a guy's attention, contains Tina Yother's cry of "I'm fine and I'm not a little girl. Waiter, my bike!") -- but it's not really a lure. The show's been in syndication for years now and it wasn't all that in real time as it fawned over Alex Keaton and sidelined Jennifer (Yothers) and Mallory (Justine Bateman). If you weren't charmed by Michael J. Fox and were immune to the greed of Alex Keaton, the show was just tired and grating.
Despite its lackluster status, Hulu had to promote it as if it were Finding Nemo because they've had so little in the last weeks to offer as ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox all went on vacation and gave their viewers a lengthy recess.
In the past, holiday fare has often crowded out regular programing in December. But in the past, holiday fare wasn't available at your local Wal-Greens on DVD. Meaning, just how special is the second or third showing of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in one month?
Considering all the money that Christmas special has raked in from repeated showings since 1964, from videocassette and DVD sales, you'd think the networks would be all over themselves each year attempting to create a new animated special. We don't mean one of those ridiculous sequels. The specials that last were originals: Rudolph, Frosty, etc.
But that would require preparing for the future and the network suits today can't think beyond tomorrow's overnights.
The lack of long range planning goes a long way towards explaining why networks are in trouble and stuck there.
When you're bleeding viewers every year, do you encourage them to go away? Do you give them an extended recess?
We waited and waited for the Water Cooler Set to address this topic last month.
Who were we kidding?
The Water Cooler Set is scared of their own shadows. They have a pack mentality and are unable to offer an original thought.
Which is a shame because this most likely does not end pretty.
What broadcast TV is doing currently in December is what cable has long done: Take a hiatus. Broadcast TV in the fifties was expected to work and did, programming seven nights a week. Today it really can't handle six nights. And in 2012, December became hiatus month?
If the Water Cooler Set was capable of thought, maybe the network suits could picture something beyond tomorrow's overnights?
In film, as Ann and Stan pointed out in the year-in-review, the films that used to be staples are gone, the ones that deal with the family, that deal with family issues, the On Golden Ponds, the Ordinary Peoples, those are gone and few have even noticed. Broadway, as well, now has little room for the observations of life and is now basically carnival barker and juke box 'musicals.'
As the broadcast networks send the audiences away, it will have an impact on the future of TV. It will impact what airs and what doesn't air. Already, there have been disturbing developments that the Water Cooler Set couldn't be bothered with.
Harry's Law, starring Kathy Bates, delivered an audience -- especially for NBC, it delivered an audience. It's second season average was higher than all but one episode of Smash. But Harry's Law got the axe last spring and Smash was brought back. NBC's Parenthood also got renewed and Harry's Law's second season average was higher than the 12 episodes of Parenthood NBC's broadcast so far this season. NBC's new drama Chicago Fire? It has yet to have an episode with as many viewers as the season average of Harry's Law.
Now when Kathy Bates did a guest spot on Two and A Half Men as Charlie (Charlie Sheen's character), the Water Cooler Set couldn't stop yammering. But that was a 'trendy' topic. Dealing with actual TV issues? Unless critical thought comes in the goody bags the networks handed out, don't hold your breath waiting for the Water Cooler Set to discover it.
Now maybe you're okay with that. Maybe, for example, you think Broadway was created for Jersey Boys and film invented for the questionable talents of Michael Bay?
If so, get ready for a million more (bad) attempts to re-invent Lost combined with a lot of niche shows that appeal to those who make big purchases. Just don't expect anything that challenges. (Niche shows, as a rule, confirm the audiences internal prejudices while reassuring them that they are a rarefied class.) Look for 'event' TV that's the equivalent of what you're getting from Broadway and film currently.
It is amazing to us that as TV digs its own grave further and further, there is no outcry from the Water Cooler Set that is supposed to be the critic, the watchdog. There is just a rush to play Kook Kidz and act like they're part of whatever HBO fad has currently caught their fancy.
TV is not going away. Maybe they think it is? Hulu was lucky to have Hot in Cleveland and Happily Divorced (from cable's TV Land) the last few weeks or it really would have had nothing. And that's true of the people who Tivo or buy episodes from iTunes or Amazon or what have you.
No matter how it's delivered, you currently do depend on TV to foot the bill, to greenlight the show, to air it so that you can watch it on whatever platform you choose. That may change. Maybe some web show will actually break out in the near future and not be an anomaly but an actual trend? Maybe not. If or until that happens, you're left with TV.
So maybe it's time for the networks to stop strip mining and start building?
If the networks are at a loss, we'd suggest that they start by finally making an Easter special out of Du Bose Heyward and Marjorie Hack's The Country Bunny And The Little Golden Shoes. Back in a 2005 book discussion, Kat noted this 1939 classic, "The Country Bunny is a Sally Field type, plucky and feisty. She wants to be one of the Easter egg carriers. Each year, there's a contest and the fastest bunnies are selected to deliver the eggs. Although the Country Bunny is one of the fastest, she is told that it's too bad she has so many children or she could be one of the five selected." In 2010, The New Yorker noticed the book and observed that "it has never been out of print" which is quite an accomplishment for any children's book -- especially one dating back to 1939. Even a network suit should grasp you can grow an audience via a special based on that.
World's largest polluter to be run by who?
In a 2010 piece entitled "U.S. Military -- The World's Largest Polluter," Political Affairs observed, "As the world's largest polluter, the U.S. military has its work cut out for it when it comes to greening its operations. According to the nonprofit watchdog group, Project Censored, American forces generate some 750,000 tons of toxic waste annually -- more than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined."
Good thing there's a Democrat in the White House, right? Surely, Barack Obama will make sure that any nominee for Secretary of Defense would be environmentally-friendly if not an actual environmentalist, right?
Wrong. If you're new to the Kyoto Protocol, Greenpeace explains it here.
And you may be new to Chuck Hagel's environmental positions as well. Here he is speaking about the Kyoto Protocol July 24, 202:
Tomorrow will mark the five-year point since the Senate voted unanimously to provide President Clinton and Vice President Gore with clear advice regarding the Kyoto Protocol. It is unfortunate that the Clinton Administration ignored the Senate's 95-0 vote on S.Res. 98, or the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, but the conditions outlined in that resolution remain the guideposts for U.S. international climate change policy. I would also remind my colleagues, and this frequently gets forgotten in the discussion, perhaps even more significant than the 95-0 vote was that the Byrd-Hagel Resolution had 65 bipartisan cosponsors. As we know, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution was very clear. It called on the President not to sign the Kyoto Protocol, or any other international climate change agreement, unless two minimum conditions were met. First, S.Res.98 directed the President not to sign any treaty "...unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period." The message was simple. Yet as we know, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. These are the very nations, such and China and India, that will soon lead the world in manmade greenhouse emissions. Any treaty that exempts them from participation is folly. Second, the Resolution stated the President should not sign any treaty that "...would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." The Kyoto Protocol would have legally bound the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. As President Bush stated in February, this would have cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and resulted in the loss of 4.9 million jobs. The Clinton Administration never submitted it to the Senate for debate and consideration. I suspect it is because they knew what is still true today - if put to a vote in the Senate, the Kyoto Protocol would face resounding defeat. Other nations are also reconsidering their early ardent advocacy for the Kyoto Protocol. Japan has ratified the treaty, but has no enforceable plan to meet its obligations. The same is true for the European Union. Australia has joined the United States in saying it will not ratify the protocol. Canada and Russia have not made final commitments to ratification.
Hagel's not fit for the post of Secretary of Defense, not in the 21st century.
Good thing there's a Democrat in the White House, right? Surely, Barack Obama will make sure that any nominee for Secretary of Defense would be environmentally-friendly if not an actual environmentalist, right?
Wrong. If you're new to the Kyoto Protocol, Greenpeace explains it here.
And you may be new to Chuck Hagel's environmental positions as well. Here he is speaking about the Kyoto Protocol July 24, 202:
Tomorrow will mark the five-year point since the Senate voted unanimously to provide President Clinton and Vice President Gore with clear advice regarding the Kyoto Protocol. It is unfortunate that the Clinton Administration ignored the Senate's 95-0 vote on S.Res. 98, or the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, but the conditions outlined in that resolution remain the guideposts for U.S. international climate change policy. I would also remind my colleagues, and this frequently gets forgotten in the discussion, perhaps even more significant than the 95-0 vote was that the Byrd-Hagel Resolution had 65 bipartisan cosponsors. As we know, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution was very clear. It called on the President not to sign the Kyoto Protocol, or any other international climate change agreement, unless two minimum conditions were met. First, S.Res.98 directed the President not to sign any treaty "...unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period." The message was simple. Yet as we know, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. These are the very nations, such and China and India, that will soon lead the world in manmade greenhouse emissions. Any treaty that exempts them from participation is folly. Second, the Resolution stated the President should not sign any treaty that "...would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." The Kyoto Protocol would have legally bound the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. As President Bush stated in February, this would have cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and resulted in the loss of 4.9 million jobs. The Clinton Administration never submitted it to the Senate for debate and consideration. I suspect it is because they knew what is still true today - if put to a vote in the Senate, the Kyoto Protocol would face resounding defeat. Other nations are also reconsidering their early ardent advocacy for the Kyoto Protocol. Japan has ratified the treaty, but has no enforceable plan to meet its obligations. The same is true for the European Union. Australia has joined the United States in saying it will not ratify the protocol. Canada and Russia have not made final commitments to ratification.
Hagel's not fit for the post of Secretary of Defense, not in the 21st century.
Because appointees always follow orders . . .
When people bring up solid objections to Chuck Hagel being nominated for Secretary of Defense over his attitude towards gays and lesbians or his opposition to women's reproductive rights, a lot of uneducated gas bags say it doesn't matter.
Let's listen in to two fools who undercut women's rights all the time with their weak-ass and spineless positions. NARAL's Donna Crane insistes, "President Obama's views on this issue would prevail if Hagel were appointed." View would prevail? Interesting. Planned Parenthood's Dana Singiser insistead, "Any Secretary of Defense nominee should be expected to fully implement the law of the land and support the President's positions."
Good to know. And thank goodness that political appointees always follow the law and always follow the wishes of a president, right?
Wrong.
Hey, look, it's Colin Powell in a White House photo taken by Moreen Ishnikawa on July 9, 2001.
Before he was Bush's Secretary of State, Powell had other appointed positions including, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Powell would choose to step down from that position but not before doing a great deal of damage to gays and lesbians.
Bill Clinton explained it to Jann S. Wenner in his Rolling Stone exit interview following his two terms as President of the United States.
Jann S. Wenner: One of the very first things you did in office was try to overturn the military's ban on gays. Why did this backfire, and what did you learn from that?
Bill Clinton: I think it backfired partly because the people that were against it were clever enough to force it. I tried to slow it down, but the first week I was president, Senator Dole - who, I think, saw it as an opportunity - decided to push a vote in the Senate disapproving of the change in the policy. I tried to put it off for six months, and the Joint Chiefs came down and raised hell about it. I wanted to do it the way Harry Truman integrated the military. He issued an executive order and gave the military leaders a couple of years to figure out how best to do it. But a lot of the gay groups wanted it done right away and had no earthly idea what kind of reaction would come. They were shocked by the amount of congressional opposition.
A lot of people think I compromised with the military. That's not what happened. We knew that at least seventy-five percent of the House would vote against my policy. If I was going to be able to do anything, I had to have a veto-proof minority in either the House or the Senate. But the Senate voted sixty-eight to thirtytwo against my policy, which meant that I could not sustain my policy in either house.
And it was only then that I worked out with Colin Powell this dumb-ass "don't ask, don't tell" thing. I went to the Army War College and explained what the policy was going to be, based on the agreement we'd reached together. Then they wrote that into law, and then we had several years of problems, where it was not being implemented in any way consistent with the speech I gave at the War College - of which General Powell had agreed with every word.
[Secretary of Defense] William Cohen has now changed the training and a lot of the other elements that contributed to the fact that this policy continued to have a lot of abuse in it, and I think it's better now. But I still don't think it's the right policy. I think the policy that I wanted to implement originally was the right policy.
In the fourth paragraph of his response, Bill is saying Cohen implemented the policy as planned but only after (third paragraph) Powell had been an obstacle.
But, hey, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, keep being useless.
Let's listen in to two fools who undercut women's rights all the time with their weak-ass and spineless positions. NARAL's Donna Crane insistes, "President Obama's views on this issue would prevail if Hagel were appointed." View would prevail? Interesting. Planned Parenthood's Dana Singiser insistead, "Any Secretary of Defense nominee should be expected to fully implement the law of the land and support the President's positions."
Good to know. And thank goodness that political appointees always follow the law and always follow the wishes of a president, right?
Wrong.
Hey, look, it's Colin Powell in a White House photo taken by Moreen Ishnikawa on July 9, 2001.
Before he was Bush's Secretary of State, Powell had other appointed positions including, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Powell would choose to step down from that position but not before doing a great deal of damage to gays and lesbians.
Bill Clinton explained it to Jann S. Wenner in his Rolling Stone exit interview following his two terms as President of the United States.
Jann S. Wenner: One of the very first things you did in office was try to overturn the military's ban on gays. Why did this backfire, and what did you learn from that?
Bill Clinton: I think it backfired partly because the people that were against it were clever enough to force it. I tried to slow it down, but the first week I was president, Senator Dole - who, I think, saw it as an opportunity - decided to push a vote in the Senate disapproving of the change in the policy. I tried to put it off for six months, and the Joint Chiefs came down and raised hell about it. I wanted to do it the way Harry Truman integrated the military. He issued an executive order and gave the military leaders a couple of years to figure out how best to do it. But a lot of the gay groups wanted it done right away and had no earthly idea what kind of reaction would come. They were shocked by the amount of congressional opposition.
A lot of people think I compromised with the military. That's not what happened. We knew that at least seventy-five percent of the House would vote against my policy. If I was going to be able to do anything, I had to have a veto-proof minority in either the House or the Senate. But the Senate voted sixty-eight to thirtytwo against my policy, which meant that I could not sustain my policy in either house.
And it was only then that I worked out with Colin Powell this dumb-ass "don't ask, don't tell" thing. I went to the Army War College and explained what the policy was going to be, based on the agreement we'd reached together. Then they wrote that into law, and then we had several years of problems, where it was not being implemented in any way consistent with the speech I gave at the War College - of which General Powell had agreed with every word.
[Secretary of Defense] William Cohen has now changed the training and a lot of the other elements that contributed to the fact that this policy continued to have a lot of abuse in it, and I think it's better now. But I still don't think it's the right policy. I think the policy that I wanted to implement originally was the right policy.
In the fourth paragraph of his response, Bill is saying Cohen implemented the policy as planned but only after (third paragraph) Powell had been an obstacle.
But, hey, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, keep being useless.
Chuck Hagel's military 'expertise'
As President Barack Obama seems set to nominate Chuck Hagel for the position of Secretary of Defense, a lot of uninformed people and a lot of professional liars want to insist Hagel's qualified because of his 'military experience.'
David Petraeus, whatever you think of him, has military experience.
Chuck Hagel?
By his own narrative, he joined in April of 1967 and "got home in December 1968."
So less than two years, in a draft military, a military rife with racial tensions (President Harry Truman ordered the military desegregated in July of 1948; in 1951, the US military began desegregation), a military where gays did not serve openly, a military that did not welcome women.
Based on those less than two years, over 40 years ago, he is qualified to be in charge of a diverse, all volunteer military?
Who knew the year of wishful thinking kick-started in 2013?
The face of intolerance
It's Phyllis Bennis, professional gadfly, tired of the position of Village Idiot so currently auditioning for Village Oaf.
At IPS, where the 'scholar' resides, they've published a recent gas bag session Phyll participated in.
The topic was Chuck Hagel potentially being nominated by Barack Obama to be Secretary of Defense.
Despite rambling on for over ten minutes, Bennis never felt the need to raise the issue of Hagel's anti-gay positions. Not only did he attack James Hormel in 1999, his Senate voting record on LGBT issues is appalling. He left the Senate in 2009. This isn't 'distant history.'
But it wasn't worth mentioning for Phyll.
Who knew she was going for The Face of Intolerance?
Congratulations to Bennis on her new title and let's hope the silence IPS is currently displaying on Hagel's homophobia is remembered when IPS asks for donations next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
