In a deal that environmental groups said would be the largest ecological restoration in the country’s history, a plan for the state to buy the nation’s largest producer of cane sugar was announced Tuesday by the governor and officials of U.S. Sugar Corporation

The intention is to restore the Everglades by restoring the water flow from Lake Okeechobee, in the heart of the state, south to Florida Bay. That flow had been interrupted by commercial farming and the Everglades have suffered as a result.

Under term of the tentative deal, U.S. Sugar would continue farming and processing for six more years before closing the business and allowing 187,000 acres of land to return to its natural state. For its part the state would pay U.S. Sugar $1.7 billion.

"Big Sugar," as the industry is known, is certainly an unsavory lot. Operating mostly in Florida, US sugarcane producers have long benefited from quotas on sugar imports, which keep the price of sugar in the US significantly above global market prices. Moreover, for decades they have been the anathema of South Florida environmentalists, who accuse the sugar industry of treating the Everglades like its own private ecosystem to drain and pollute. In recent years the state and federal governments have spent billions trying to restore the Everglades from some of this damage.

For this reason, environmentalists are thrilled that the State of Florida may buy back hundreds of thousands of acres of the Everglades from Big Sugar, reclaiming for Floridians what many say was theirs all along.

But that the Everglades should have been "ours" all along is exactly why I am unhappy about this plan.
I grew up in South Florida, and my parents are among the millions of Floridians (and Americans in general) who have been subsidizing Big Sugar for years; by paying taxes, by paying high sugar prices, and by tolerating rampant water diversion and pollution of an ecosystem without which Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe (Florida Keys) Counties would all be uninhabitable.

Now the State is offering one of the country's most offensive industries another $1.7 billion in taxpayer money, in addition to six years of free rent, in order to stop the pollution.

This doesn't make sense! The government should not have to buy its way to a clean environment. To the contrary, polluters should compensate the rest of us for their actions, and if compensation proves too expensive then they should get out of the polluting industry altogether. What message does this send to polluting industries, if we respond to our own failure to effectively regulate against pollution by simply buying them out? This is like saying the solution to climate change is governments around the world buying out carbon-emitting firms, or the solution to ozone depletion is governments buying out chemical manufacturers. Though I believe a role of government is to act as stewards of the environment on our behalf, paying polluters in order to stop them polluting is neither a responsible, nor particularly effective, approach to achieving this end.

Rather, the State of Florida should be thinking of better ways to make sugarcane producers exist within the limits of the Florida ecosystem, just as all governments should seek to keep their economies operating at a size that is environmentally appropriate. This means capping, pricing and taxing resource consumption and pollution at rates that keeps them well within the bounds of what is ecologically healthy and sustainable. In the case of Big Sugar, such policies will inevitably mean it can no longer grow sugarcane on a large scale in the Florida Everglades. Rather, sugar would be imported from countries where it can be grown in a more environmentally efficient manner, and likely at prices cheaper than those we pay now.

The Everglades deal may seem like a win for environmentalists; but in the long run buying out polluting firms is the wrong way to protect our ecosystems.

Earlier this month several individuals in the media noted McCain's not-so-subtle plagiarism (or mockery?) of Barack Obama's famous slogan, "Change We Can Believe In:"

Republican John McCain has transformed rival Barack Obama's slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" into his own line, "A Leader We Can Believe In."

McCain's campaign this week posted the personalized motto on its Web site. The white, bold words are posted on a blue background above red and white stripes — a pattern similar to Obama's campaign logo.

This weekend I visited McCain's website, and couldn't help but laugh when I noticed McCain's blog, The McCain Report, also has as its slogan "A Blog You Can Believe In."

This sounds ridiculous. I don't think people believe in blogs, and if they do, they likely wouldn't chose a blog by someone who has admitted they don't understand computers or the Internet. Next I'm routing for "A Press Release You Can Believe In" or, better yet "A McCain Blocks Onesie You Can Believe In."

Also, shouldn't it be "A Blog In Which You Can Believe?"

Seminal readers, in what do you believe today?

Lawyers for the White House and Congress sparred in federal court today over whether lawmakers can force top presidential advisers to testify or produce documents for a legislative committee, in a case that marks an unusual conflict between the two branches of government.

The House Judiciary committee, which is investigating the firing of U.S. attorneys in 2006, filed a lawsuit in March seeking to force former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify about a possible White House role in the dismissals. She has refused to appear, citing executive privilege…

The committee's lawsuit is the first time in U.S. history that either chamber of Congress has sued the president to force compliance with a subpoena.

So basically, one branch of government has a problem with another branch of government, and has turned to the only branch of government left to sort it out.

More specifically, they've turned to one dude within the judicial branch of government to mediate, and he happens to be Bush appointee U.S. District Judge John Bates.

Encouragingly, Bates expressed skepticism at the White House's claim it should be allowed to disregard subpoenas. He told White House lawyers it would be "very helpful" if they would tell us all why these documents are so sensitive, later infoming them they had no case for the "absolute immunity" they were proposing. However, he also seemed curious as to why Congress felt the need to bring this case to court, noting that Congress already has the power to hold Miers in contempt (and thus arrest her). In addition, Congress can also suspend funding for White House projects, stop paying Justice Department salaries, or refuse all confirmations.

Better yet, as the HuffPo notes, if Congress really thinks the President is obstructing justice, it could always just vote to impeach him. After all, "it takes the same simple majority that approved the contempt measure against Miers and [White House Chief of Staff Josh] Bolten" to launch an impeachment.

The media seems to think it more likely that Bates will send the parties back to the negotiating table, or just shelf the case until the Congressional session is over and the case becomes moot. Either way, I am looking forward to the day we all get to hear (and we will, sooner or later) what these guys are so desperate to hide.

Only five days before Zimbabwe’s presidential runoff election, the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai announced Sunday that he was pulling out of the race because armed forces backing President Robert Mugabe have made it clear that anyone who votes for Mr. Tsvangirai faces a real possibility of being killed.

At a news conference, Mr. Tsvangirai, who leads the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, or M.D.C., said he was unwilling to ask the party’s supporters to go to the polls on Friday “when that vote will cost them their lives.”

Mr. Tsvangirai’s decision came on a day when governing party youth militia armed with iron bars, sticks and other weapons beat his supporters as they sought to attend a rally for him in Harare.

There is little doubt that Mugabe never had any intention of letting this election go forward fairly, and even less intention of relinquishing power after 28 years as president. Mugabe lost the March election by his government's own admission, and yet he determined a run-off was necessary. During the lengthy interim his party wreaked havoc on the people of Zimbabwe, systematically beating, torturing, and slaughtering those who openly supported Tsvangirai, burning homes and shops in areas that voted for him, and (according to the MDC) making plans for widespread vote-rigging; all in an effort to intimidate and "re-educate" those stupid enough to consider voting for the opposition again in the run-off.

Apparently, all of these efforts paid off, as today Tsvangirai conceded there is no point in going forward with this "violent, illegitimate, sham of an election process."

Not to be a cynic, but I expect we'll see a tide of statements from international "leaders" voicing their "regret" over this decision — and stark reference to their collective refusal to oversee a free and fair election in Zimbabwe this week.

After winning an impressive 70% of the vote in a four-candidate Democratic primary Scott Kleeb is running to represent Nebraska in the US Senate. He is a 32-year old father of two girls, a college history professor, and a former rancher, and also holds a PhD in History (with a focus on agricultural economics) from Yale. Most importantly, Kleeb is running on a progressive platform in an overwhelmingly Republican state. (My favorite: he's a big fan of developing wind energy.)

Kleeb is running for the seat soon to be vacated by Republican Chuck Hagel. Hagel's popularity as an outspoken critic of the Iraq War, combined with the fact that prior to Hagel's first election to the Senate in 1996 Nebraskans elected Democratic Senators seven times in a row, indicate Kleeb just might just have a shot at defeating former Nebraska governor Mike Johanns. Most pundits are putting this race squarely in the "red" category, but with Kleeb polling at a respectable 40% and five months still to campaign, his candidacy is worth our attention.

The Seminal will be keeping an eye on this race (as well as those of other Blue Heroes) for November's Senate elections.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

First of all, about those "21 billion barrels." Only about 4 billion are thought to be off-shore (mostly off the coast of Louisiana), with the other 16 billion mostly concentrated under Texas (which is busily pumping it) and Alaska (which is pumping some of it and protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge over the rest of it). As the Sierra Club notes off-shore drilling "is by far the slowest, dirtiest, most expensive way to meet our energy needs"; and will achieve virtually nothing to end our dependence on foreign oil or bring down gas prices. It will, however, exacerbate climate change, which McCain purports to be fighting.

All of this is why eight years ago, when McCain ran for president the first time, he opposed lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling. He acknowledged then that it was a bad idea, making his support of it now (like the gas-tax holiday) yet another feel-good gimmick in response to today's unprecedented gas prices.

Grist also reports that in the same press conference yesterday McCain appeared to be confused about his own climate policy, denying (as he's done several times) that it imposes any "mandatory" limits on carbon emissions (even though that's exactly what it does):

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those — impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.

Seems John-O is digging himself into quite the hole. (Also from the WashPo):

[In a Post-ABC poll, conducted Thursday through Sunday]…Obama held double-digit leads over McCain as the candidate more trusted to deal with gasoline prices and energy policy.

Recently, Sen. John McCain has been reaching out to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) supporters by lavishing praise on Clinton. But a “news article” posted on McCain’s website may undermine those efforts. The “article,” which is actually a reader’s comment made at Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish, refers to Clinton as “the B*tch":

"Fred Thompson is good but pointless. He clearly doesn’t want to be in this race. His wife must really want to be First Lady. Paul is hopeless. Huckabee is at least sincere, but I just feel that nominating him is tantamount to giving away the store. He’s a big-government liberal with the compassion of Jimmy Carter and a nanny-state busybody of the highest order. I’d rather have the Bitch. At least she’d balance the budget. You know, like her husband did."

Within hours of people noticing, the article disappeared from McCain's website. Of course, removing the article was the right thing for the McCain campaign to do, though it begs the question "Why did they post it in the first place?" Call me old-fashioned (or not, being that I am about .00001% of McCain's age) but I thought "respectful campaigning" would preclude this is sort of insidious republishing of name-calling.

Think Progress also notes that this is not the first time McCain has allowed his backers to go un-chastised, if not echoed, for referring to Clinton as a "bitch." Here he is back when she was the frontrunner. Nothing like a little misogyny — and hearty jokes about ex-wives — to get a campaign rolling…:

Actually, "respect" would be calling out supporters who call Clinton a bitch, not laughing with them and republishing their work. McCain might want to re-think this approach as he tries to court Hillary's supporters.

For example, while Sen. McCain says he favors an effort to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, his voting record shows a reluctance to support mandates, tax credits and other policies often touted by other politicians, including Sen. Obama, as ways to spur greater use of alternative energies and energy efficiency. Sen. McCain argues that many of the steps are little more than subsidies that enrich special interests….

At a roundtable with business leaders in Washington state last month, Sen. McCain expressed reluctance to support government incentives such as tax credits for wind and solar energy. He compared his stance on the matter to his position on corn ethanol. "I'm a little wary — I have to give you straight talk — about government subsidies," he said. "When government jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as well as intended."

Well, that certainly is straight talk. Especially from the candidate who last week announced his opposition to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act because it didn't include enough subsidies for the nuclear industry:

As I have said, I'm very deeply committed to the nuclear component of any legislation that will have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions…And I've been disappointed so far that there has not been a robust and serious addressing of the issue of nuclear power.

To get this a little straighter, McCain is opposed to subsidizing clean and renewable energy on the grounds that subsidies are bad; however, he favors subsidizing the nuclear industry on the grounds that we need clean and renewable energy; all whilst opposing a bill that does, in fact, seek to build clean and renewable sources of energy (which nuclear is not) and still provides plenty of subsidies to nuclear energy.

Here is what John McCain told Grist last year about supporting (truly) clean and renewable energies like wind and solar:

I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the '70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time.

Huh. I didn't know the wind industry was doing fine. I also didn't know Americans have been disenchanted with solar since the '70s, (though I do remember them getting pretty disenchanted with nuclear power when this and this happened around that time). Of course nuclear accidents haven't stopped the federal government from providing what can only be described as a "robust and serious" endorsement of nuclear in recent decades, with the nuclear power industry receiving nearly $100 billion in subsidies since WWII. Just for good measure, McCain (the one who doesn't believe we need to subsidize things) proposed an additional $3.7 billion in his own (2007) version of a cap-and-trade bill.

John-O did have one thing right — that nuclear subsidies can produce "unintended consequences." I don't know about you but when I think of the potential unintended consequences of building nuclear power plants all across America and of filling Nevada with radioactive waste, I think I'd rather find out what the unintended consequences of exploring wind and solar energy are.

A contingent of American and British diplomats investigating the political situation in Zimbabwe were stopped at a roadblock and detained by the police on Thursday, American officials said…

During a car chase of over 6 miles, the police tried to force the American diplomats off the road. When they were finally stopped, all four tires of their white S.U.V. were slashed and a local security official was punched….

The diplomats refused [to accompany police to a nearby station] and, after a phone call to the American embassy back in Harare, set off in their vehicles in different directions. One car, containing American diplomats, took back roads and reached Harare safely. The second American car took the main road back to Harare before it was stopped at the roadblock north of the capital, near Mazoe. The British car was stopped at the same roadblock, the ambassador said.

The article goes on to report how this is a fairly obvious indication that the Zimbabwean police are trying to stop Western officials from witnessing state-sponsored violence. Apparently, Mugabe has been threatening to evict U.S. Ambassador William McGee for weeks now, for speaking out against the attacks.

As Alex Thurston reported earlier this week the police have also been detaining, attacking, and murdering opposition leaders throughout the country, as well as blocking the humanitarian organization Care from delivering aid. On Wednesday, Zimbabwean police detained Mugabe's opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, (for the bazillionth time) for absolutely no reason.

Here is what Mugabe's Zanu-PF does to activists who support Tsvangirai's democratic opposition movement in Zimbabwe (apologies for the graphic nature of this excerpt):

The body of Tonderai Ndira was found this week, the 43rd Zimbabwean opposition activist to die in violence since elections in March…This new body was badly decomposed; a pair of bloody shorts was plastered to a face clearly broken and shattered.

"We only knew it was my brother by his distinctive ring, his bangles, and his unmistakable height," said Cosmas Ndira, as family and friends filled his small home to mourn his passing before his funeral, which is yet to be finalized. "His jaw was shattered, his knuckles broken, a bullet hole below his heart, many many stab wounds and a large hole at the back of his head which seemed to have been caused by a hammer."

The rest of the world notwithstanding, certain American leaders have zero right justifying our invasion of Iraq on the grounds that we were liberating Iraqis from a brutally oppressive leader, while continuing their inaction in Zimbabwe. Anyone who can read can see where this is going, but our government has the power to stop it. We have an obligation to intervene on behalf of the Zimbabwean opposition movement, right now.

We are derelict, and we are complicit in this brutality, each and every day that we do not.

The war is no longer the top concern among voters.

A lot has changed with respect to Iraq in a relatively short period of time. Voters have come to feel better about the way the war is going, and with American casualties declining, there is more optimism about our efforts there. While most Americans still believe the war was a mistake, the percentages of people who think the war is going badly or believe that the United States is losing ground against the insurgents has decreased compared with a year ago. In short, while no less important, Iraq is a somewhat less pressing issue.

According to Pew, the economy (especially gas prices) is now issue No. 1, and the war has been bumped to issue No. 2. Get ready for more economic policy pandering from McCain in response to this — tax cuts for everyone!

Of course, according to Bush, there's no chance the two are connected. I think it's time we re-inform the public about the link between the war and the recession:

The soaring price of oil is clearly related to the Iraq war. The issue is not whether to blame the war for this but simply how much to blame it. It seems unbelievable now to recall that Bush-administration officials before the invasion suggested not only that Iraq’s oil revenues would pay for the war in its entirety—hadn’t we actually turned a tidy profit from the 1991 Gulf War?—but also that war was the best way to ensure low oil prices. In retrospect, the only big winners from the war have been the oil companies, the defense contractors, and al-Qaeda.

Well, maybe Fox News as well.