Have you heard about...? (Politics edition)

[mattstick]

Glad to see the liberal/progressive early results from the Dutch election.

[jam>]

Glad to see the liberal/progressive early results from the Dutch election.

Paging Mopper

[Buffalo Budd]

Wow!  :shakehead:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-merkel-twitter_us_58cc672fe4b0be71dcf50347

[gah]

 :shakehead: <- Pretty sure that sums up this entire presidency. Comey just confirmed the investigations regarding Russia-Trump connections and states categorically no evidence of Obama ordering Trump wiretapping. What a sad state of affairs, from last weeks nonsense with the UK intelligence, Merkel, the proposed skinny budget, etc...worst. president. ever.

[mattstick]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/21/trump-wont-allow-you-to-use-ipads-or-laptops-on-certain-airlines-heres-the-underlying-story/?tid=pm_pop

Trump won't allow you to use iPads or laptops on certain airlines. Here's why.

The U.S. says it's all about security

The Trump administration says the new rules were introduced because of intelligence that shows terrorists are continuing to target airlines flying to the United States. An unidentified person familiar with the issue has told The Washington Post that officials have long been worried by a Syrian terrorist group that is trying to build bombs inside electronic devices that are hard to detect.

However, as Demitri Sevastopulo and Robert Wright at the Financial Times suggest, non-U. S. observers are skeptical of this explanation. They note that the United States has not been forthcoming about whether the ban is based on recent intelligence or long-standing concerns. There is also no explanation for why electronic devices in the cabin are a concern, and electronic devices in the baggage hold are not.

There is an alternative explanation

It may not be about security. Three of the airlines that have been targeted for these measures — Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways — have long been accused by their U.S. competitors of receiving massive effective subsidies from their governments. These airlines have been quietly worried for months that President Trump was going to retaliate. This may be the retaliation.

These three airlines, as well as the other airlines targeted in the order, are likely to lose a major amount of business from their most lucrative customers — people who travel in business class and first class. Business travelers are disproportionately likely to want to work on the plane — the reason they are prepared to pay business-class or first-class fares is because it allows them to work in comfort. These travelers are unlikely to appreciate having to do all their work on smartphones, or not being able to work at all. The likely result is that many of them will stop flying on Gulf airlines, and start traveling on U.S. airlines instead.

[rowjimmy]

UK enacted a similar laptop ban today.

[Buffalo Budd]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/arctic-researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations

Does this not seem like some sort of crime against humanity? WTF?

[ytowndan]

The House of Representatives just decided, by a vote of 231-189, that they don't much like internet privacy.  Not that we had much of it to begin with, but I guess they thought the little we did have was just too much.  This is exactly the kind of crony capitalist bullshit they're going to quietly pass while we're all distracted by the latest series of late-night tweets shat out by the president. 

[runawayjimbo]

Getting a little concerned about the rollbacks on Environmental laws dudes.

You can fuck around with your borders or whatever but when you start dumping toxic shit in the Great Lakes so Trump and his Russian Oligarchs can make a few more billion, I'm gonna be real pissed.

Getting a little concerned about Trudeau's insistence on shipping all your dirty, dirty tarsands down here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justin-trudeau-climate-change_us_58f4be6ee4b0b9e9848cf9a0?oxg

Justin Trudeau A 'Stunning Hypocrite' On Climate Change, Says Top Environmentalist
The Canadian prime minister's support for the Keystone XL pipeline conflicts with his image as a progressive darling.

Justin Trudeau's support for more oil pipelines and tar sands drilling is at loggerheads with his image as Canada's progressive heartthrob prime minister, according to a top environmentalist.

In an op-ed published Monday in The Guardian, 350.org founder Bill McKibben called Trudeau a "stunning hypocrite" on global warming.

"[W]hen it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, he's a brother to the old orange guy in DC," McKibben wrote, referring to U.S. President Donald Trump. He said Trudeau was "hard at work pushing for new pipelines through Canada and the US to carry yet more oil out of Alberta's tarsands, which is one of the greatest climate disasters on the planet."

Tar sands ― a noxious mix of sand, clay and bitumen, a viscous oil ― are considered one of the dirtiest fossil fuels. The controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which Trump jump-started days after taking office in January, would funnel a daily load of 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil to refineries in Texas, producing emissions equal to putting 5.6 million new cars on the road, according to estimates by the environmental nonprofit Friends of the Earth.

A spokesperson for Trudeau did not reply to a request for comment.

In 2015, former President Barack Obama rejected pipeline-builder TransCanada's application to construct the Keystone XL after a seven-year deliberation. Trudeau cheered Trump's decision to reconsider the pipeline.

"I reiterated my support for the project. I've been on the record for many years supporting [Keystone XL] because it leads to economic growth and good jobs for Albertans," Trudeau told reporters on Jan. 24, when Trump signed an executive action inviting TransCanada to reapply. "We know we can get our resources to market more safely and responsibly while meeting our climate change goals."

To be sure, the Trudeau administration has made significant moves to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. In November, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna announced plans to phase out most coal-fired power plants by 2030. Some coal power stations would remain, equipped with carbon-capture technology that has yet to be proved reliable. Nevertheless, the Canadian government forecasts carbon emissions falling by 5 megatons ― equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the road ― if the plan is fully implemented.

In December, Trudeau announced a nationwide minimum price on carbon of about 10 Canadian dollars, or about $7.53 per metric ton. By next year, the administration plans to roll out either a tax on fossil fuels or a cap-and-trade system to exact the levy.

Still, McKibben urged Trudeau's gushing fans to "stop swooning" over the prime minister, whom he called a "disaster for the planet."

"Trump is a creep and a danger and unpleasant to look at, but at least he's not a stunning hypocrite," McKibben wrote, before concluding: "Trump's insulting the planet, in other words. But at least he's not pretending otherwise."

[mattstick]

Damn, you hold a grudge bro.  Nobody outside Alberta likes Tar Sands Oil much either, and if the US didn't have a market for it we wouldn't sell it to you.

[Hicks]

Ha, you really think the US is the only consumer of tar sand oil?

The Keystone XL is merely the fastest and cheapest way to get it to the gulf.

From there much of it goes to China.

[mbw]

Damn, you hold a grudge bro.  Nobody outside Alberta likes Tar Sands Oil much either, and if the US didn't have a market for it we wouldn't sell it to you.

Oooh, hitting jimbo right in the unregulated free market.

[runawayjimbo]

Damn, you hold a grudge bro.  Nobody outside Alberta likes Tar Sands Oil much either, and if the US didn't have a market for it we wouldn't sell it to you.

No grudge, bro. I saw the article and remembered your concern imagining what Trump *might* do. And I was just curious if you were as pissed about Trudeau actually doing it.

However, if you follow the link to the Guardian column, you'll see that your PM disagrees with your assessment.

Last month, speaking at a Houston petroleum industry gathering, he got a standing ovation from the oilmen for saying: "No country would find 173bn barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there."

Ha, you really think the US is the only consumer of tar sand oil?

The Keystone XL is merely the fastest and cheapest way to get it to the gulf.

From there much of it goes to China.

Nope. Sorry. If it wasn't for the US, Canada would leave that filth in the ground where it belongs.

Damn, you hold a grudge bro.  Nobody outside Alberta likes Tar Sands Oil much either, and if the US didn't have a market for it we wouldn't sell it to you.

Oooh, hitting jimbo right in the unregulated free market.

LOL, unregulated

[mattstick]

I didn't vote for Trudeau and I didn't vote for Harper before him.  I don't approve of drilling for oil in the Tar Sands.  If we are going to pump Tar Sands oil, I further disapprove of pumping unrefined oil out of the ground just to ship it to US refineries, it makes no sense.

It's almost like these things are nuanced and you can approve of the Canadian Liberal Government for being progressive on immigration and human rights while not agreeing with their stance on energy.

[kellerb]

I didn't vote for Trudeau and I didn't vote for Harper before him.  I don't approve of drilling for oil in the Tar Sands.  If we are going to pump Tar Sands oil, I further disapprove of pumping unrefined oil out of the ground just to ship it to US refineries, it makes no sense.

It's almost like these things are nuanced and you can approve of the Canadian Liberal Government for being progressive on immigration and human rights while not agreeing with their stance on energy.

Nuance in Polytix?  Fuck you.