We're frack'd

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

At this point, Hillary Clinton seems to be the presumptive Democratic nominee, and if Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee as expected, chances are great that the US is finally going to have their first female president. Which is all well and good, even though some are gutted with the prospect of having yet another representative of what's been shaping up to become one among several political dynasties (Clinton, Bush), and yet another establishment representative.

If the latter is not sufficiently cringe-inducing to those progressive-leaning folks who'd've rather preferred Sanders for president, there's another problem with Hillary that may cause quite a few concerns. And it's this:

Bernie Sanders Will Ban Fracking. Hillary Clinton ‘Sold Fracking to the World’
and
On Eve of Caucuses, Clinton Rakes in Fracking Cash
and
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
"A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas."

In a time and age where it has become very likely that the world has already moved past the tipping point where runaway, devastating changes to the natural balance are almost inevitable, the prospect of a Clinton-in-chief seems to bode very poorly for our chances of halting that change. Given the above evidence, Hillary's recent actions and stances strongly indicate that she has actually become more conservative on energy policy than she already was. With the US potentially steering away from its recent commitments to tackle climate change under a possible Clinton administration, the prospects in that regard are starting to look rather dour.

Let's just hope she doesn't get a Nobel Peace Prize a few weeks after her inauguration.

Comments

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

John Pilger had an interesting overview on Hillary Clinton, and it didn't bode well for America, either:

https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/

[garote]

"Ukraine – once part of the Soviet Union – has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally."

This is where he lost credibility for me. This "overview" is a hash of wild-eyed speculation, selling the importance of his own films, with half a page about Hillary tacked on to the end.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

This "overview" is a hash of wild-eyed speculation

Is it, though? Let's dissect it a little bit.

"a CIA theme park"
CIA Director John Brennan Visits Ukraine Amid Crisis (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/john-brennan-ukraine_n_5147869.html)
Russia security agency arrests CIA-trained Ukrainian spy (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/04/01/458547/Russia-Ukrainian-Spy-CIA-Yuriy-Ivanchenko-Biden/)

"Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev"
It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict)
Victoria Nuland Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian, "Democratic Institutions" (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm)

"Washington effectively controls a regime"
Obama and Biden assure Yatsenyuk of United States’ support for Ukraine (http://joinfo.com/us/1006125_obama-biden-assure-yatsenyuk-united-states-supports-ukraine.html)
Reviled by Ukrainians but Backed by US PM Yatsenyuk Stays On (http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-wants-him-so-yatsenyuk-stays/ri11871)

"a regime rotten with Nazis"
Yes, There Are Bad Guys in the Ukrainian Government (http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/18/yes-there-are-bad-guys-in-the-ukrainian-government/)
The Neo-Nazi Question in Ukraine (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/the-neo-nazi-question-in_b_4938747.html)
Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955)

I'd say that even if 1% of all this is true, it does warrant some investigation - as opposed to dismissing it all outright, and calling the messenger an idiotic conspiracy theorist.

Handwaving an issue is not addressing said issue.

[garote]

Your articles in support of "Washington effectively controls a regime" only lay claim to offering support of the regime, not controlling it. Claims of "a regime rotten with Nazis" are a little more salient, since Svoboda is definitely a fascist party and they have a lot of influence, and even one Nazi is too many. But nevertheless as the end of your third article states, "Ukraine is emphatically not run by fascists."

Here's a nice summary explaining Russia's actions and the evidence chain for them, and how the environment in Ukraine at the time led to a coup, without the CIA coming anywhere near "orchestrating" it.

Russia's leaders are eager to promote their own self-preserving narrative that the CIA is attempting to disassemble the country by subterfuge (therefore they are heroes for thwarting Ukraine's independence), but they do not have much of anything in the way of evidence. There is plenty of bluster from the deposed leaders within Ukraine as well, but again, no evidence.

But, if you say, all it takes is for "1% of this" to be true, then by all means go with that. By the same token I could claim that my friend Matt gives sterling commentary about sexual politics and is a man to follow and trust, based on his wild declaration that "all women are freeloaders". Hey, if it's 1% true, it bears investigation... (Followed hopefully by prompt dismissal.)

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

The irony. You pontificate about using credible sources of evidence, and yet your "summary" is taken from a forum comment. You know, a forum like this one, where people share personal opinions and give "sterling commentaries" like your friend Matt. Your "evidence" is actually an opinion by someone called Igor Markov - is that what you're saying? Because that's exactly where your link directs to. Is that the best that a 5-second Google search gave you?

Yeah, Ms Nuland's leaked remarks on the US involvement in the Maidan is of course "pseudo" evidence to be dismissed outright, too. I get your drift. You've already made up your mind. You're of course free to keep believing the CIA has noting to do with the events in Ukraine. That still wouldn't make that a fact.

I propose that we agree to disagree and move on. Not worth the time.

[garote]

If you wanna do the goalpost dance, that's fine. I never said the CIA had "nothing to do with events in Ukraine". The summary I pointed to is just that - a handy summary. Follow it and see where it leads if you like. I'm not invested enough in your opinion to put any more of my time into it.

So yes, agree to disagree.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Do your homework for you? And subscribe to Quora.com to even be able to access it? Ookaay. I may to that some day.

[garote]

It's free! And you're missing out on some pretty interesting stuff.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

A regime led by a guy whom the people want out, but who decided to stay, stating support from the US, pretty much fits into the definition of a US-controlled regime in my book. It could be a matter of semantics of course (supported vs controlled) with a lot of grey area in between - but hardly grounds for "losing faith" with someone altogether. At least my two cents.

I agree Russia is still lying heavily on the matter, though, and using propaganda to push their agenda through. No doubt about it. See? I'm not even using evidence to make this claim, because everyone knows it to be true. It stands to reason. We've heard it time and time again in our media, after all, and they never lie (nor do they perform propaganda of their own - ever).

[garote]

I haven't lost faith in Mr. Pilger. But it's obvious to me that he prefers sensationalism over accuracy.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

"I haven't lost faith in Mr. Pilger"
But...
"This is where he lost credibility for me"

Um... OK...

Journalists use sensationalist methods to attract attention to what they're saying. Look at the neighboring post. The Panama leak has been called "The leak of the century". Doesn't make it sensational - but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid issue. Same with Pilger. He uses strong words to attract attention. Still doesn't invalidate the point he's making.

Unless you want to use his sensationalist rhetoric as an excuse to dismiss the point, that is. Which you can easily do at any given time, of course.

[garote]

Yeah that's the thing. I think your definition of journalism has gone through the same post-internet time warp that the definition of terms like "report" and "investigation" have gone through. Sensationalist rhetoric tends to smear what "the point" is, and is not just journalism; it's poor journalism. Often the more strident the voice, the more entrenched the bias. And after a while it just becomes more trouble to unpack it than it's worth.

And now, I assume, it's your turn to take the "But if even 1% of this is true..." tack, and we go 'round again.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

And how's the strawman that you just used on me, conductive to the more rational discourse that you're advocating about?

[garote]

No strawman in use here. You're excusing him for being sensationalistic by calling it part of his job. I'm responding that that his job as a journalist should be to find distance from sensationalism, not embrace it.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Whatever. Talking-about-talking is boring. Not to mention that the whole conversation is beside the point.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Not a word about Hillary's deep links to the fracking industry?

[garote]

What, in the article? If there is, I must have missed it...

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Nice try.

No, do you have anything to say on the subject in the OP - or are we going to keep derailing discussing Pilger's persona?

Same question (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/2080754.html?thread=151156466#t151156466) to you here as well, btw.

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

Who cares about the future of energy policy and the approach to climate change under a potential Clinton administration! Let's spend the whole conversation talking about the credibility of a journalist called John Pilger instead.

[garote]

Yep, Clinton is certainly more tolerant of fracking than Bernie is. Yep, as secretary of state she talked it up to other nations. The Obama administration has made a lot of claims about the high volume and yields and low cost of fracking - talking about exporting fuel to Europe to undercut Russia, talking about walking away from the oil producing nations - and I suspect it is mostly hot air. (Hot gas?) And she spewed her share of it.

I know Bernie would rather ban it entirely. But as president, that bill is not going to cross his desk. I assume he's just as loudly proclaimed that he would ban coal, for the sake of consistency, since it's both an extremely dirty energy source and a really shitty, exploitative industry. But that bill is not going to cross his desk either. I've heard Hillary talk about regulating fracking, and I've heard her talk about transitioning coal workers out of their industry with some form of "clean jobs" program, and I have serious doubts about the latter especially.

But on balance, it's a big "meh" from me. Energy we don't draw out of the ground from shale, we will simply draw out of the ground from a foreign desert. I think both candidates are deliberately missing the point, perhaps because it's not something that americans - left or right - want to hear: Their goddamn energy-guzzling lifestyle has got to change, drastically.

Here's a new law for you; one that neither candidate has the balls to ask for: Phase privately-owned passenger vehicles out of the entire US infrastructure in the next 16 years. It's all buses, taxis, railway, cargo trucks, and bicycles, period. Cease all imports of cars, starting yesterday. You buy used cars only, until they're all gone. If your commute doesn't happen by shuttle, it doesn't happen.

Let's see what THAT does to the economy! :D

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

See? That wasn't so hard, was it? Thanks!

[garote]

Funny story: I rode my bike to the farmer's market today to get dinner ingredients. Sitting there eating some meat-onna-stick from one of the vendors, I overheard two guys on bicycles talking about their bad experiences with drivers. One of them said:

"You know, I think it's about time people started realizing what a huge problem cars are. I mean, hauling freight? Wonderful! For private use, hauling your ass around? Terrible! We oughta pass laws to phase them out!"

Must be something in the air!!

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

Interesting point. I'm sure you can find a point where essentially anyone could lose credibility for you - be it a statement of theirs, an action, a lack of action, or maybe a promise broken.

Since you're now basically defending Hillary Clinton, I'd be interested to know if you're as eager to use your own standard, and pick up a reason to lose trust in Hillary Clinton as well. I mean, it's not like there isn't enough material (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/) you could use as an excuse reason - in any case, it certainly seems more ample than Pilger's.

[garote]

I'm flattered that you're so invested in my perceptions of her.
But first - define for me again what my "own standard" is? Because you're challenged me to use it, but it's not clear here what it is.

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure even you know where your standard is.

[garote]

That's why I asked!!!

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

So it's going to be the same-old-same-old, eh? How utterly surprising.