RIP Tulsi Twerker and 9/11 falser Mike Gravel

RIP Mike Gravel. 

In reality? Just.Another.Politician.™, including supporting the Vietnam War for election reasons before he was against it. (Even more problematic was this lie was told when the man he was challenging, Sen. Ernest Gruening, was on record with long-standing opposition to the war.) As part of that run, he was one of the first candidates for national-level office to hire an official campaign consultant, Joseph Napolitan.

A Tulsi Twerker and 9/11 falser. (And a UFO falser, which probably also needs mentioning given that the Pentagon's report on its investigation of latest unidentified flying object (that's what a UFO is and nothing more!) spottings by pilots etc is coming out now.

Per Wiki, In his time in the Senate decades ago, Gravel opposed Carter's eventually passed plan (supported by Ted Stevens!) for creating the state's current large national parks and preserves system. He supported the Alaska pipeline, and wrote an amendment to the bill for its authorization that blocked the use of the National Environmental Policy Act as part of review of its construction and indemnified it from any lawsuits related to that. He opposed President Carter's groundbreaking Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. In general, had zero serious pro-environmental record. Arguably an anti-environmentalist, as least in his Senate tenure. (He also opposed filibuster reform and sometimes backed Southern Dems against Northern ones just to be a pain in the ass. He joined Southern Dems in voting for Clement Haynsworth for the Supreme Court, even.)

 

Another example? He opposed Nixon's anti-ballistic missile system, but told Scoop Jackson he'd support it if Nixon opened yet more Alaska oil drilling. That included drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Yes, by 2008, he opposed ANWR drilling, and did so. It's nice that he became more environmentally minded, but would have been better if he admitted earlier that he was wrong.

If really a "progressive" across the board, Gravel would have left Dems for Greens or something, not Libertarians, in his 2008 departure from Dems. This would be the same Libertarian Party who back then, as well as today over the suicide of John McAfee, has fanboi members repeating the "taxation is theft" bullshit. In reality, given his lie above, I suspect he jumped the shark to Libertarians instead of Greens purely on vote numbers.

Yeah, he did support the Green New Deal and the Paris accords in his 2020 non-run "run." But, that was the Dems' ripoff version of the GND, and the Jell-O Paris accords. A real environmentalist? Maybe he evolved beyond his original Senate tenure, but that says nothing.

Counterpunch's puff piece says that he was environmentalist in other ways. Being against nuclear fission power may or may not be environmental, esp. if you want all-electric cars and other things. (And, it IS a puff piece; it omits everything I have in this piece. AND, it's a puff piece because it's by his daughter. Hey, St. Clair, is this going to be a regular deal? You essentially ran an Anchorage Daily News type family-submitted obit, not an obit story. Would you do this with, say, Tulsi Gabbard?)

Counterpunch has doubled down and is fellating his memory in a podcast. He may (or may not) have BECOME a man of principle. He sure as hell wasn't when he first got elected. He quite arguably was an anti-imperialist. Anti-capitalist? How many anti-capitalists run for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination? (Gravel later admits he's not referring to socialism "in the classical sense." And, you know? Fascism didn't nationalize most businesses, but it did nationalize what they were supposed to be doing.) Again, it seems he looked at past Libertarian and Green vote totals, and saw which third party was bigger. Just.Another.Politician.™

Also, a Sarah Palin whisperer when the Schmuck Talk Express named her his Veep.

He did have his good side. Rational Wiki notes his support for various "direct democracy" initiatives.

But, given that Gruening was already against the war, Gravel actually brought little to the table in his political career.

And, since Tulsi Gabbard was and is NOT an "antiwar" candidate, his endorsement of her — his, not the college fanbois — actually undercuts his previous antiwar activism.

 

And, given that he told lies in his 2008 Libertarian run as well, Just.Another.Politician.™is something people need to remember about him. He lied then about stopping Nixon's Alaskan N-tests. He also lied about killing the draft by filibuster; on both these, see explanatory footnotes to his Wiki piece.

And, yes, he did call for people to help Howie Hawkins get ballot access last year. Did he actually endorse him? Well, it's a big argument, and it's filtered through Primo Nutbar and other things. But Wiki says Gravel didn't endorse him, by not listing Gravel among endorsees. And, as an independent leftist not a Green, this is yet another reason I won't vote for Howie in 2024 if he gets the nomination.

Speaking of, whether it was Gravel his own self willingly, or the college fanbois of the Gravel Institute dragging him around by the nose, he did get wrapped up with Primo Nutbar on this issue. And, it never got clarified. That was along with the fanbois backing Bernie, but then Gravel himself coming out personally as a Tulsi Twerker.

As for him lowering income inequality in Alaska? Given that he opposed the parks-and-preserves plan of Carter, even after compromises were made, I'm not buying that one, either, Ms. Mosier. On Indian affairs? He at one time wanted to abolish the BIA. (I know, from reading books about the modern Wounded Knee and more that the BIA is problematic, but, if your plan is to do nothing but abolish it?) He did fight for in-Alaska high schools for Natives. I'm unaware of any major connection he had to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act beyond being an original cosponsor and a couple of small amendments, not all of which passed. (That didn't stop him, about a decade ago, from BOTH claiming unwarranted credit AND still bashing Carter over ANICLA in the same interview. He bashes Carter when it was really his own fault; his meddling with previous versions of the bill led Carter to invoke the Antiquities Act.) His full record of sponsorship of Senate items re Native Americans is here. As Wiki notes, his Senate record on Indian affairs was "complicated."

So, this is not a full takedown obit, but it IS a semi-takedown, and as such .... #NotTooSoon. I had long know about him on 9/11, and of course, Tulsi just popped up with his 2020 campaign. I had never before looked in-depth at his Wiki page, though. The Vietnam stuff was new to me. And disconcerting, not just because it happened but again, it's not been "repented" of since then.

The final take? We all change. I grew up a conservative Republican. But, I admit I've changed, and I admit I rejected religious conservativism from both parents, racism from my dad and other things. Gravel seems to have pretended that he never changed. Second, regular readers know I loathe conspiracy thinking. Third, regular readers know I loathe Tulsi Gabbard. Enough said. (Unless you're at Counterpunch and choose not to say these things.) 

Counterpunch IS helpful in other ways. It has Gravel claiming Mark Felt, aka Deep Throat, deserves the American Medal of Freedom. Anybody who actually knows anything knows that Felt started leaking because he was butt-hurt that Nixon wouldn't name him as J. Edgar Hoover's successor.

High speed rail in Texas? #HSR before California?

Jeff Turretine says that the Pointy Abandoned Object State could zip past the Leaden State (California, y'all) on high speed rail. A Texas consortium is organized to back HSR to connect the Texas Triangle.

I've long said that Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio/Austin are perfectly situated for HSR. There's cities of big enough size to justify it, cities that are connected to each other for business reasons (or politics, with Austin), and just the right distance apart that HSR can easily compete with planes, especially with airport parking and boarding times, etc., on travel time.

The Texas group is also pitching this as a totally private issue, no "gummint" involved.

Flip side? Beyond the eminent domain Perry mentions (he'll have an update tonight or tomorrow) as part of his take, along with the conservative politics of the no "gummint," will be related issues. Among them, I'm sure, will be attempts to railroad through (I see what I did there) all the environmental parts of the permitting process. We've already seen that if it's oil vs. lizards, or water vs. cranes, we know who wins, damn the paperwork and damn the feds who are part of that "gummint."

Anyway, since the biggest push right now is coming from H-town, go back to Perry's website and look for updates. Or click this link; it's a fairly detailed update from him, linked to one from another Houston blogger.

Has Obama found some environmentalist gonads?

I definitely want to see the fine print, but if he takes a step 1/10th as strong as, say, NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, has been so far, this proposed executive order would be huge.

Here's how such an order would take off on NEPA's current regulations:

While some U.S. agencies already take climate change into account when assessing projects, the new guidelines would apply across-the-board to all federal reviews. Industry lobbyists say they worry that projects could be tied up in lawsuits or administrative delays. 

For example, Ambre Energy Ltd. is seeking a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a coal-export facility at the Port of Morrow in Oregon. Under existing rules, officials weighing approval would consider whether ships in the port would foul the water or generate air pollution locally. The Environmental Protection Agency and activist groups say that review should be broadened to account for the greenhouse gases emitted when exported coal is burned in power plants in Asia. 

But, here's where the fine print already comes in.

 Lawyers and lobbyists are now waiting for the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality to issue the long bottled-up standards for how agencies should address climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

And, that's why I think that's there will be more horsemeat than beef in this burger.

I bring to mind, say, the Consumer Finance Protection Agency. Still crafting legal standards. Ditto for other post-Great Recession Obama federal agencies on regulating banksters.

And, given the history of the Department of Interior under Obama, I'm not holding my breath too much.

That said, as the story notes, any executive order expansion of NEPA would invite citizen lawsuits just like NEPA's other protections. However, if a subsequent Republican president revokes that executive order, what happens?

Bloomberg's story says any court cases already decided would set precedent. But, the conservative activists on SCOTUS care little for precedent.

And, anti-Keystoners who, in their ongoing fight, think this would give them more ammunition? I doubt it.

And, Obama's plan to finance energy security could backfire; the funding depends on money from federal oil and gas drilling leases, and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski has already explicitly tied it to ANWR being opened for drilling.

Roadless Rule still alive and kicking, sort of

Despite President Bush's attempt to gut President Clinton's Roadless Rule in national forests by making state governments jump through hoops, it's still alive in seven Western states.

Well, sort of. Most states that have done anything have adopted protections well short of what Slick Willie proposed to "enshrine" by executive order.

That's the whole problem, though. We need a Roadless Act - legislation - not just a Roadless Rule.

Meanwhile, a U.S. District Judge found Bush's Roadless Rule Lite to have violated the National Environmental Policy Act. But, another district judge, in another federal circuit found that the Roadless Rule itself violated NEPA.

That, too, is why we need legislation.