US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1815

On April 06 2015 10:40 Toadesstern wrote:
I'm not, that's why betting HIS balls and not mine. I'm not that crazy

A federal panel that helps set federal dietary guidelines is recommending Americans eat less meat because it’s better for the environment, sparking outrage from industry groups representing the nation’s purveyors of beef, pork and poultry.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, a federally appointed panel of nutritionists created in 1983, decided for the first time this year to factor in environmental sustainability in its recommendations. They include a finding that a diet lower in animal-based foods is not only healthier, but has less of an environmental impact.

The meat industry is lashing back, contending the panel has neither the authority nor the expertise to make such a judgment.

“When you talk about the lens of the dietary guidelines it’s just not appropriate for the advisory committee to enter that conversation when they were asked to look at nutrition and health science,” said Kristina Butts, executive director of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) agrees, saying sustainability is a complex issue best left to a body that specializes in the environment.

“The same concern would exist if an expert sustainability committee were making nutrition policy recommendations,” Betsy Booren, NAMI’s vice president of scientific Affairs, said in a public meeting last week. “It is not appropriate for the person designing a better light bulb to be telling Americans how to make a better sandwich.”

The Agriculture Department and Department of Health and Human Services will use the committee’s report and recommendations to draft the final guidelines for 2015, due out later this year.

Lindsey Graham may paint some green onto the 2016 Republican presidential platform. Just don’t call him a moderate.

The South Carolina senator and potential GOP presidential contender is one of the few Republicans left on Capitol Hill to embrace the idea that humans play a sizable role in warming the planet. He spent months negotiating with Democrats on an attempt at major climate legislation during President Barack Obama’s first two years, and he’s received both praise and fundraising help from the Environmental Defense Fund, a centrist voice in the green movement.

That could offer a big contrast between Graham and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who opened his own long-shot White House bid late last month with a message of unabashed conservatism. Cruz later said in an interview that climate activists — or as he called them, “global warming alarmists” — are “the equivalent of the flat-Earthers.”

But Graham, who bases his climate views as much on Scripture as on science, balked when asked whether the GOP needs a moderating voice — akin to the pro-science, pro-climate-action role that former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman played in the 2012 Republican primaries.

Graham’s label for himself is “solid conservative.”

“From a biblical point of view, we were counseled by God to be good stewards of the environment,” he said in an interview.

His question for the GOP on climate change is almost an existential quandary: What exactly does the party stand for?
“As we’re going to the 2016 cycle, what is the Republican Party’s plank when it comes to the environment?” Graham asked, echoing a speech he gave in late March at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I think we would do ourselves some good if we come up with an environmental position that is good for business, that would make sense to the people who are concerned about the environment.”

But he also vows to stop Obama’s biggest climate regulation, an upcoming EPA power plant rule that Graham calls the economic “nightmare” his own legislative efforts aimed to prevent. He says that “the global warming debate has gotten off track” largely because Democrats like Al Gore have created a “religion” around the climate issue.

“Democrats portray it as a religion,” he said. “I portray it as a problem.”

“From a biblical point of view, we were counseled by God to be good stewards of the environment,” he said in an interview.

“Democrats portray it as a religion,” he said. “I portray it as a problem.”

On April 06 2015 16:13 coverpunch wrote:
You can be concerned about conservation and environmental issues while not necessarily doing it for the sake of preventing climate change. The GOP's faith in deregulation blinded them to real problems with existing regulations IMO. If they were really good, they'd play political judo on the issue, taking up some environmental causes while letting Democrats go too extreme and anti-business with it in their effort to position themselves further to the left.

Author Jonathan Franzen wrote an interesting article in the New Yorker that there might be a paradoxical trade-off.

On April 06 2015 16:13 coverpunch wrote:
You can be concerned about conservation and environmental issues while not necessarily doing it for the sake of preventing climate change. The GOP's faith in deregulation blinded them to real problems with existing regulations IMO. If they were really good, they'd play political judo on the issue, taking up some environmental causes while letting Democrats go too extreme and anti-business with it in their effort to position themselves further to the left.

Author Jonathan Franzen wrote an interesting article in the New Yorker that there might be a paradoxical trade-off.

The Iran nuclear agreement being hailed as a major breakthrough is inconclusive on key questions, fueling criticism of the deal and leaving even military and terrorism experts uneasy.

“Everyone shouldn’t put it out of their mind and clap their hands,” said Arnold Bogis, a former Harvard fellow and terrorism expert. “It comes down to the next couple of months. They have to work out the technical details.”

The “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions calls for a final pact by June 30. If the deal is reached, crippling sanctions will be lifted.

U.S. Sen. John McCain said yesterday too many issues remain on the table. “Congress must be actively involved in reviewing and ultimately approving a nuclear agreement with Iran,” he said.

Among the concerns are:

• Why won’t Iran be forced to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country?

• Why can Iran still conduct research and development of the latest centrifuge designs, even if on a “limited” basis?

• Why is the country’s military nuclear facility at Fordow not being closed?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal, if signed, will “threaten the survival of Israel.”

McCain also warned against Iran’s influence in the region.

“Ultimately, we must recognize that Iran is clearly on the offensive across the Middle East,” McCain said in a statement. “We cannot, and should not, divorce our nuclear diplomacy with Iran from the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses. I am concerned about the impact that today’s agreement may have on the growing tensions and conflicts in the Middle East — for as Dr. Henry Kissinger has observed, the administration’s approach to nuclear diplomacy with Iran has moved from preventing proliferation to managing it.”

The outline of a deal was reached by six world powers and Iran after marathon negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Lausanne, Switzerland.

The deal is being called historic, but others stressed last night it’s too soon to close the book.

“It’s not a real deal at this point,” said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel and former National Security Agency member. “There’s a lot that could still change. At best it’s a start from a trust perspective.”

One of the deal’s high points, according to Jim Walsh, an international security professor at MIT, is Iran’s plan to redesign and rebuild a heavy-water research reactor in Arak, making it incapable of producing a nuclear bomb.

“I think it’s historic. I think a lot of us were surprised by the level of detail and by some of the provisions that are stronger than we expected,” Walsh said. “I think it’s a no-brainer. The Iranians agreed to a lot.”

Iran is on the offensive across the Middle East

On April 07 2015 01:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/security_experts_signal_caution_on_iran_nuke_deal



Response I would make to McCain:
1) I agree that US foreign policy in all other areas towards Iran should remain divorced from this nuclear deal.
2) We cannot stop Iran from proliferating if they truly desire it; management is better, and even in containing nuclear proliferation the deal is better, as even if it's fulfilled in part it will set back any weapons program for Iran by far more than a military intervention would. With the current instability in the region, and the comparative cost of a military response to their program, this deal is more or less the best option we have currently to neutralize Iran's potential to develop nuclear weapons.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) listed himself as Hispanic on a 2009 voter-registration form obtained by The New York Times from the Miami-Dade County Elections Department.

Bush, the likely Republican presidential candidate, spent two years living in Venezula, and speaks fluent Spanish. He is married to Columba Bush, who was born in Mexico, the Times noted on Monday.

The former governor hails from the influential Bush political dynasty which, New York magazine noted, helped settle Plymouth Colony. Bush's family has been described by Slate's Jacob Weisberg in his book The Bush Tragedy as "New England WASP."

Bush has taken pains so far to not tack to the hard right on immigration policy. Meanwhile, anti-immigration hardliners like Laura Ingraham have warned that Bush's support for reforming the nation's immigration system (which at times have seemed hazy) could be his undoing if he got the 2016 presidential nomination.

On April 07 2015 00:49 Nyxisto wrote:
No need to balance being pro environment with pro business. Being pro-environment is being pro-business. If you actually value jobs that increase quality of life and are sustainable that is.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CaliforniaWWS.pdf

This study figured out that California could become 100% green powered by 2050 (80% by 2030) creating 200k jobs while decreasing healthcare and pollution costs. Why are people framing this debate like being pro-environment is somehow anti-business?