Month: June 2010

Oil gushers? Wind farms? Nothing compares with the impact of carbon.

Chait is angry that "many people with more left-wing views have decided that debating my actual analysis is less useful than debating a neoconservative Likudnik":

I consider settlements a very major problem. I do think, though, that the more important problem is the refusal of Palestinians to accept the legitimacy of any Jewish state. In a 2009 poll, 71% of Palestinians said it was "essential" to have a state that encompasses all of present Israel and the West Bank. Only 17% of Israelis said it was essential to have a Jewish state controlling all that territory. I believe that, if presented with a peace accord that Israelis think will not endanger their security, it is difficult but far from impossible to imagine an Israeli government signing on. I have a harder time envisioning a Palestinian government doing the same — any Palestinian government that surrenders the dream of replacing Israel is going to be an unrepresentative one that's likely to be quickly overthrown. I think it's still worth trying, and the settlements remain a crime, but that's my view of the obstacles to peace in order of their importance.

So the question here is one of tactics then, right? Chait thinks that until Palestinian opinion shifts decisively, the pressure should be on them in resolving the issue, not the Israeli government's policy of increasing settlements. I think this is completely misguided. I think the settlements are obviously the biggest problem for a two-state solution because, er, they are on the other side's land and are imposed by brute force and often racist and religious contempt. And with each day they grow – and they've almost doubled in population this past decade – they kill off any chances of peace. It seems to me that a quarter of a million squatters on occupied land is a pretty definitive peace-blocker. But even freezing their construction was too much for the pro-Israel lobby to handle.

But even if I'm wrong and Chait is right, and Palestinian opinion and not settlements is the major problem, isn't continuing the settlements and collectively punishing Gazans likely to have the opposite effect on Palestinian opinion? Hasn't it already? And so, Chait's position becomes self-fulfilling. Israel says: we will continue building settlements because the Palestinians are still hostile to our existence, but their hostility to Israeli existence is exacerbated by the settlements. The logic of Chait's argument means that, practically, nothing will change. The settlements will continue; US aid to Israel will remain; Palestinian resentment will deepen; Israel's isolation will intensify; Israel's demographic slide into an apartheid state will accelerate.

Reversing this cycle was precisely the point of Obama's insistence on a settlement freeze as a kick-start to negotiations.

This wasn't a big leap or an impossible demand. It wasn't a reversal of any settlements, let alone forcible dismantling; it was merely a suspension of adding to what Chait calls a crime. And yet even then, Chait backs Israel. And the US has already done a lot to nudge West Bank sentiment by economic support, and backing the most capable Palestinian leadership – Fayyad especially – in years. A constructive response from Jerusalem and AIPAC last year could have greatly built on this. But we got the usual bile.

The reason Chait comes off as a neocon Likudnik is that his bottom line is still that of a neocon Likudnik. Somehow, it's always Israel that gets the benefit of the doubt – even when led by Avigdor Lieberman and Bibi Netanyahu. And somehow, nothing ever changes – save the jerk of the collective AIPAC knee.

Balluta Bay, St. Julian's, Malta, 12 pm

Marbury:

The fact that BP is being "beaten up" isn't what's causing the share price to crash – it's the bloody catastrophe that's doing that, and it really doesn't need much help. If British pensioners are losing money that's because their fund managers over-invested in BP and didn't properly account for the risk of a disaster like this one…

It's not the crass opportunism that gets me down about this stuff, or the (faux-)stupidity, it's the chippiness. It makes us seem so insecure, always seeking out "slights" from abroad to get upset about. Whatever happened to those great British traits of effortless confidence and sang-froid (excuse my French)?

Check out this letter to the editor of the WSJ this morning. Like the Technology Review piece, it is written by someone who really knows how this industry should operate. Read the whole play by play for the full impact. And get angrier:

Mr. Hayward and BP have taken the position that this tragedy is all about a fail-safe blow-out preventer (BOP) failing, but in reality the BOP is really the backup system, and yes we expect that it will work. However, all of the industry practice and construction systems are aimed at ensuring that one never has to use that device. Thus the industry has for decades relied on a dense mud system to keep the hydrocarbons in the reservoir and everything that is done to maintain wellbore integrity is tested, and where a wellbore integrity test fails, remedial action is taken.

This well failed its casing integrity test and nothing was done. The data collected during a critical operation to monitor hydrocarbon inflow was ignored and nothing was done. This spill is about human failure and it is time BP put its hand up and admitted that.

Did Douglas Brinkley let a cat of the bag?

A reader writes:

I don't believe that the shift in Israeli sentiment is the result of whacked out religious extremism, or a belief that God gave them all of the land, or even excessive paranoia. I think it's the result of their long experience with terrorist attacks. The whole point of terrorism is to create anxiety and even panic in civilian populations. Well, if you do that in a democracy, you get very strong support for some pretty brutal policies. People don't like being scared, and they'll demand that their government do something — anything — about it. We saw that here after 9/11, and we're seeing it in Israel.

Imagine that every time you walked around in Ptown you had the idea, in the back of your head, that a bomb might go off in public spaces. Every now and then one would go off, not when you're present, but perhaps in places you visit. A few people would be killed or injured. Not many. But a few. And you just lived that way for several years. My contention is that such an experience would change you. And that it has, in fact, changed the people of Israel.

I remember being back in Nebraska after 9/11, and listening to people talk about whether or not a bomb was likely to go off at a shopping mall. I'd say, "They don't even know where Nebraska is," and the person I was talking to would say, "You don't know that, the SAC headquarters are here, there's a large military base, we could be a target." I don't think it was reasonable or realistic to be afraid. But people were. And I think that has a lot to do with their embrace of all the shitty stuff we embraced as a country.

This is an explanation that doesn't really appeal to anyone. What I'm saying, basically, is that Israel has been traumatized, and that it's acting irrationally (and immorally) as a result. Supporters of Israel certainly don't want to hear that.

I'm pointing out that terrorism is really fucking evil, and really, really corrosive. No one backing the Palestinians wants to focus on that. Even really reasonable critics of Israel don't want to talk about that. You're not saying much about terrorism and what has happened in your comments. None of this excuses anything. Whoever put those four slugs in that kid's head is a murderer. But I think it explains it.

I'm sure it's a factor. What's strange, however, is that the current veer to the far right has occurred during a time when the risk to most Israelis from such terrorism, with the exception of Southern Israel, has declined. But no doubt the memory of that experience – when projected onto Hamas' war crimes against civilians in towns like Sderot – still operates. All I can say is: if we are not to lose our souls, we have to resist succumbing to this human temptation. It is to take terrorism's bait – and magnify its power.

I didn't always see things this way. The last decade has forced me to look into that abyss and turn back.

(Photo: A relative of Florida teenager Daniel Wultz looks at his coffin as it is taken away after a memorial ceremony for the 16-year-old Jewish youth May 15, 2006 at a synagogue in Jerusalem, Israel. Wultz was critically injured in a Palestinian suicide bombing on a Tel Aviv restaurant three weeks ago and succumbed to his injuries May 14. His body will be flown to Miami overnight for burial on May 16 in South Florida. By Uriel Sinai/Getty Images.)

Am I a self-hating Brit because I find excuses for BP completely pathetic? Are all BP-bashers Anglophobes?

Nah.

On the other hand, would a congressman who declared that an Israeli accent on TV probably means someone is lying be deemed a normal part of the discourse?

Nah too.

"There is no simple answer to why my nomination failed. But I have no doubt that the OLC torture memo — and my profoundly negative reaction to it — was a critical factor behind the substantial Republican opposition that sustained a filibuster threat. Paradoxically, prominent Republicans earlier had offered criticisms strikingly similar to my own. A bipartisan acceptance of those criticisms is key to moving forward. The Senate should not confirm anyone who defends that memo as acceptable legal advice," – Dawn Johnsen, on her bid to lead the Office of Legal Counsel. 

A reader writes:

Yes, gruesome. Odd, however, that Think Progress is meticulously tracking the deaths of a few hundred birds, but never mentions that it favors attempting to replace oil with a technology – wind farms – known to kill up to 40,000 birds a year, every year, in a similarly gruesome fashion, leaving them to die in pain on the ground half-beaten to death. I guess the latter deaths aren’t as politically useful, thus not worthy of any attention. But, by all means, let us declare the end of oil because we can easily switch over to … um, well, something I’m sure. Oh, man, how come reality has to intrude on every great progressive talking point?!

PolitiFact backs up that claim – and then some:

The American Bird Conservancy estimated in 2003 that between 10,000 and 40,000 birds were killed each year at wind farms across the country, about 80 percent of which were songbirds and 10 percent birds of prey. “With the increased capacity over the last seven years, we now estimate that 100,000 – 300,000 birds are killed by wind turbines each year,” said Conservancy spokesman Robert Johns. By our math, that comes to 274 to 822 birds a day killed by wind farms across the country.

Update – more context from a reader:

40,000 or 300,000 birds is a lot – but a tiny number compared to some other causes of death. The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates (PDF) that somewhere between 97-196 million birds are killed annually by collisions with building windows.