I want to say "Sounds Good!" just to keep the S.G. theme going, but, unfortunately, this selection doesn't sound that good, at least for some of us, because Dr. Gupta is an "obesity epidemic" guy who occasionally likes to mingle his fat-hating with misogyny.
For more on Gupta's Big Fat Problem, see Zuzu here, too, as well as Fillyjonk, Rachel, and FatFu.
And if you're not sure what the big deal is, check out Meowser's guest post about how fat-hating and bureaucracy is not good news for anyone, especially as we verge on creating a (partially) public health system.
Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General
It's Like Robin Hood, Except Totally Not
So, I don't even really know where to begin with this clusterfucktastrophe of an idea in which the unholy alliance of General Mills, purveyor of such food brands as Lucky Charms cereal and Häagen-Dazs ice cream, NBC's fat-hating diet game show "The Biggest Loser," and Feeding America (formerly known as Second Harvest), the largest domestic hunger-relief organization in the US, have joined forces under the banner of the Pound for Pound Challenge, in which American fatties are encouraged to lose weight to help feed their starving countrywo/men.
General Mills, NBC's The Biggest Loser and Feeding America today announced they are partnering to launch the Pound For Pound Challenge, an initiative that encourages Americans to lose weight and feed the hungry. For every pound dieters pledge to lose this new year, a pound of groceries will be delivered to a local food bank.Okay, let's stop right there for a moment. Right off the bat, there's a serious problem with speaking about fatties and "Americans at risk of hunger" as if they're mutually exclusive groups. Some of the most at-risk adults and children in America for hunger and/or malnutrition are fat, because poverty and lack of access to healthy food go hand in hand—something I'm guessing may have crossed the minds of the makers of Hamburger Helper (and related Helper items), some of which are as much as 48% fat per serving and all of which have been designed to provide a low-cost meal for an entire family.
…While 130 million people are overweight in the United States, 35 million Americans are at risk of hunger. The new Pound For Pound Challenge gives Americans the opportunity to fight the hunger crisis and help families in their neighborhoods by simply pledging to lose weight and get healthy.
Hamburger Helper (nor Lucky Charms, nor Häagen-Dazs) isn't the sort of product that General Mills is promoting via their participation in the Pound for Pound Challenge, however.
In addition to pledging to lose weight, Americans can donate directly at www.PFPChallenge.com and look for Pound For Pound lids and seals on specially-marked General Mills products. For each lid or seal mailed in, General Mills will donate 10 cents, enough to provide a pound of groceries, to Feeding America. General Mills brands carrying the lid or seal include Yoplait Light®, Cheerios®, Honey Nut Cheerios®, MultiGrain Cheerios®, Total®, Fiber One® (Cereal, Bars, Muffin Mix, Pancake Mix, and Yogurt), Green Giant® Valley Fresh Steamers(TM), Chex Mix® 100 Calorie, Warm Delights® Minis, Bisquick® Heart Health®, and Cascadian Farm® (Cereal and Bars).So the idea is that we should buy the specially-marked products (many of which happen to be weight-loss items—surprise!), and then spend a minimum of 42¢ sending them in so that GM can donate 10¢ to provide a pound of groceries, three pounds less than our first-class stamp would buy. Brilliant.
"More and more people need help getting food on the table in these troubling economic times, but the Pound For Pound Challenge is helping to meet the demand for donations in a big way," said Vicki B. Escarra, president and CEO, Feeding America. "By providing more food resources for Americans, individuals and families can spend their money on other equally important basic necessities like rent or mortgage, utilities and transportation."And even easier by going to the grocery store and just buying some shit for your local food pantry! But, I will admit, that lacks the particular je ne sais quoi of making food donations contingent upon fatties' desire and ability to lose the poundage, a construction positively reeking with the implicit suggestion that their personal gluttony is somehow directly responsible for others' hunger.
…Food banks across the nation are facing unprecedented demand for food, and help is needed to keep this crisis from worsening. Becoming a part of the hunger crisis solution, however, is easy to do with the Pound For Pound Challenge.
Never mind if you're fat for some other reason besides wanton excess—like, say, having been living on mac n' cheese for a year just to sustain yourself and your kids, or because you can't afford your thyroid medication or that hip transplant you desperately need to stay active. And, as always, never mind if you're fat and healthy. Fuck your reality.
In America, there are unhealthy gluttonous fatties, period. And anyone above a size 8 or 32 waist obviously doesn't need a pound of groceries—they need to lose a pound and help some people who really need it. And stop being so
I've seen some cynical fucking ploys in my day, but this one really takes the motherfucking cake.
Pun intended.
[H/T to Shaker Jessika.]
Bad Idea of the Day
President-elect Barack Obama is resurrecting an idea that fell short of enactment twice in 2008: allowing companies a speedier recovery of their current losses through refunds of taxes they paid on earnings in previous years.The whole story is here. While reading it, this line struck me: "Republican leaders have said that they are more likely to support a stimulus bill that contains GOP ideas." Huh? Really? You don't say. Wevs.
The extension of net operating loss carryback from two years to five, which is favored by Republicans, would provide instant refunds to some of the firms that have been hit hardest by the recession, including large portions of the financial services and real estate industries.
Okay, this may or may not be a good idea. (Probably not, but I'll leave that to our resident economists to debate.) But you know what is not a good idea? Giving in to those fucks in the Republican Party.
Mr. President-Elect, remember that spanking they got in November? That landslide victory you and your party claimed? That was practically a mandate not to give them anything, for fuck's sake. Screw those guys. The country has seen their work these last eight years and is fed the fuck up with their bullshit ideas. Let's try something else.
Mommy! My Golden Parachute is Broken!
I will just say from the start that I always tend to cringe whenever I read an article that starts with something like this:
"Let me begin with the caveats: I like men."Don't get me wrong -- it’s not a horrible awful no good very bad article -- there are some good assessments and important points, like:
“. . . as the financial debacle unfolds, I can't help noticing that all the perpetrators of the greatest economic mess in eight decades are, well, men. Specifically, they are rich, white, middle-aged guys, same as the ones who brought us Watergate in the 1970s, the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s and, presumably, the fall of Rome.”I don’t know exactly when I started getting that little “uh-oh” feeling about this article, but I do know when the “uh-oh” turned into an “oh no”.
“Although the Y-chromosome is undeniably overrepresented along all tiers of finance, it is particularly overrepresented at the highest levels of power and in those sectors most deeply implicated in the current crisis. A Catalyst Research study last year found that women make up almost 60 percent of the workforce at Fortune 500 finance and insurance companies but account for only 17.9 percent of corporate officer positions and none of the chief executive positions.”
It was when I read this part:
“We need women in leadership positions not only because they can manage as well as men but because they manage differently than men; because they tend -- over time and in the aggregate -- to make different kinds of decisions and to accept and avoid different kinds of risk. We need women who will say no to bad decisions based on male-dominated rivalries and clubby golf course confidences. We need women to blow the whistle when risks explode and to challenge the presumptions that too many men, clustered too closely together and sharing a common worldview, can easily indulge." (emp. mine)First sentence, not so bad, but as the paragraph commenced, I found myself feeling all oh-no-ish. When I considered what set off my bells, I found that my response was not exactly simple:
First of all, I’ve never been a fan of the Venusian-Women/Martian-Men binary.
Yeah, sure, there actually might be some innate, hormonally-driven differences between those in biologically male bodies and those in biologically female bodies, but in my opinion, any such differences are so entangled with cultural entrainment that we will probably never truly know what’s what in that regard – so I always chafe when people bring up shit like University studies that “prove” that men are bigger risk-takers because (wait for it!) -- It’s the testosterone, stupid.
And secondly -- of course we need women who will say no and who will blow whistles . . . . . but we need that when anyone is making bad decisions -- not just men.
But that isn’t my biggest beef.
My biggest beef is that, if women are placed in positions of power so that they can say no to bad decisions based on male-dominated rivalries and blow the whistle when testosterone-driven risks explode, this, in my humble opinion, is just another casting of women in the Mommy role.
"Oh, did the boys make a mess again? Well hustle right in there, little lady, and clean it up!"
The notion of women as the mop-up crew or hall-monitor squad for men who just can’t help themselves when too many of them get packed into a boardroom does not, in my view, change diddly-shit about Patriarchy – it puts women right back into the role of the Eternal Maternal, while simultaneously infantilizing men.
I see institutionalized oppression, at its core, as a skewed distribution of power and responsibility (the group on top gets all the power, while the group on the bottom gets all the responsibility/consequences), and because of this, I don’t believe that putting more women in power will, by itself, shatter institutionalized sexism/misogyny.
In my view, in order for any system to be balanced, the responsibility/consequence has to live where the power is, and vice-versa.
That would mean that men step up and accept responsibility for the consequences of the power they’ve wielded for millennia, in addition to moving the fuck over when women step up to claim their share of the power (for which they’ve suffered the consequences for millennia, anyway).
The closing line of the article --
"As the constant wail from Wall Street should remind us, diversity isn't just nice in theory. It makes for better business."-- brings to my mind the picture of the Big Baby Men crying for Mommy, who will put things right because of her innate ability to nurture and protect.
In other words: Same old, same old. No thanks.
Prop 8 Challenges Mount
Good:
Another wave of legal arguments hit the California Supreme Court on Monday in the battle over Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.Rock.
Local governments, led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, filed their latest opposition papers to Proposition 8, describing the voter-approved initiative as a "dark moment'' in California history. The brief is an attempt to refute the legal arguments of Proposition 8 backers as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge from government officials, civil rights groups and same-sex couples who are seeking the right to marry.
The San Francisco brief sides with the unique argument raised in December by Attorney General Jerry Brown, who argues that voters did not have the authority to strip away a fundamental constitutional right when they approved Proposition 8 in November. Brown, who ordinarily would be forced to defend state law, argued in his December brief that the state Supreme Court's decision last spring striking down California's prior gay marriage ban established that fundamental right to marry.
You know, every once in awhile, and it happened again while I was reading the Prop 8 supporters' responses in this article, I experience a moment of overwhelming mystification that there are people who will fight so vociferously against something that has fuck-all to do with their lives. Their empty, boring, privileged lives.
Quote of the Day
"We have to do it in the Facebook, with the Twittering, the different technology that young people are using today."—Republican National Committee incumbent chairman Mike Duncan, on how the GOP can appeal to younger generations.
See what happens with Rick Santorum out of elected office? He's gone two years and already members of his party are talking about doing it in the Facebook. Unnatural!
[H/T to Shaker Kevin, by email. The whole article by Dana Milbank is totally fucking hilarious, btw.]
Kate Hudson, You Are Still Getting on My Last Good Nerve
Exhibit A: Bride Wars
Exhibit B: "I've made a conscious decision to try to stay single as long as possible."
Exhibit C: You have got to be fucking kidding me.
On the importance of keeping her man happy: "People think that you can put your sexual life on hold, but you have to find time for it. Without that relationship, our family is broken. My mom really implanted that in me when I was pregnant."I eagerly await for Kate Hudson's upcoming relationship guide co-written with Dennis Prager: Men Are From Mars; Women Are From Planet Make-Time-and-Put-a-Smile-on-Your-Goddamned-Face.
If this: "Without that relationship, our family is broken."—is in accurate statement about your relationship, it's broken already. There are likely going to be times when at least one person in a relationship doesn't want to have sex because of stress, exhaustion, grief, emotional or physical trauma, or just being in a weird-ass headspace with the relationship or with sex generally. There may be times when at least one person in a relationship is physically unable to have sex, because of natural changes in the body, disease, or illness. If the foundation of an entire family is built on a sexual relationship that can never be put on hold for any reason, that's a family in crisis right from the get-go.
And there's something particularly horrid to me about the suggestion that a new mother should ensure she makes time to screw her husband, lest she "break" not just their relationship, but their family.
Double the horror that the exhortation is delivered, as ever, via a(n allegedly) sexually liberated modern woman, a role model to young women, her presumed progressiveness implicit in her fashion-forwardness, her ubiquity, her popularity, her success, her dynamism. She's free and her mind is free, we are meant to think, as she tosses her hair. Surely it couldn't be that such an icon of youth and modernity would deliver the same old patriarchal messages that women must, above all else, sexually service their male partners...!
Sigh.
It's kind of amazing to me that Kate Hudson and Dane Cook haven't hooked up and spawned the Antichrist yet.
Not Defending the Defense of Marriage Act
One of the authors of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 was Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA). Mr. Barr, along with many of the bill's supporters, were freaked out by the possibility that same-sex marriage would become legal in some states -- specifically because of a pending court case in Hawaii -- and they rushed the law through to make sure that if gay marriage became legal in one state, it wasn't necessarily legal in the other 49. The bill was signed by President Clinton.
At the time the bill was passed, Mr. Barr was a regular fixture on such talk shows as Crossfire along with folks like Newt Gingrich and other guardians of morality who predicted dire consequences if people in love with other people got married without due regard to their gender, and he stood as the last bastion protecting "traditional marriage." Of course, Mr. Barr has a great deal of experience in "traditional marriage" -- he's been married several times, as has Mr. Gingrich.
Now, however, Mr. Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president in 2008, has come out against DOMA and is pushing for its repeal. It's not that he's suddenly in favor of same-sex marriage per se, but in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, he says that the law violates the idea of libertarian federalism.In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.
I suppose that if you are going to win over conservatives or those who are not inclined to accept the idea that two men or two women can undertake the legal obligations and privileges that marriage entails without bringing down fire, brimstone, and the wrath of Rick Santorum, the small-government argument is the way to go. One way or another, it is blatantly unfair to apply one standard of equality to one group and not to another, and whether or not the point is made on a legal or emotional basis doesn't matter.
Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.
In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.
There will be a lot of resistance to the idea of repealing all or part of DOMA; the Religious Right will point to the passage of Prop 8 and Amendment 2 and say that the people have spoken, and they will use them and DOMA as the foundation for proposing the Federal Marriage Amendment, the attempt to amend the Constitution to define marriage as that between one man and one woman. But here's a novel idea; if DOMA can't be repealed, why don't we amend it to apply it equally? If a gay couple's marriage doesn't have to be recognized by another state, then a straight couple's divorce doesn't have to be recognized by other states as well. For example, if a man and woman get divorced in Ohio, the state of Florida or Nevada can prevent the ex's from getting re-married to other people because, according to DOMA, the state doesn't have to accept the divorce decree issued by a court in Toledo. I think that would make the point quite clearly to those serially-married defenders of "traditional marriage," which didn't used to include divorce, what equality is all about.
Cross-posted.
More Obamarama Transitionalicious-a-Go-Go
Leon Panetta, former congressman, Clinton White House chief of staff, and current head of the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, has been nominated by Obama to lead the CIA.
Not all the Dems are thrilled; Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Rockefeller, current and outgoing heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have raised objections on the ostensible premise that they believe the agency needs to be led by an intelligence professional, although I suspect at least part of the issue is feeling as though the transition team did an end-run around them. As Steve Benen notes: "As the incoming chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Feinstein didn't expected to help make the choice, but she 'wanted the courtesy of knowing about it' before the selection made headlines. Panetta's name leaked, but word didn't come from the transition office."
Anyway, I've got no serious guff with Panetta. He seems fine to me. Given that he's firmly against the use of torture in any circumstances, he's certainly a step in the right direction from the dunderheads to which we've become accustomed over the last eight years.
In other news:
Brad Kiley has been named as the director of the Office of Management and Administration by President-elect Barack Obama. Kiley, who is openly gay, is currently the director of operations for the Obama-Biden Transition Project and was a former vice president at the Center for American Progress.Maybe if he's lucky, Rick Warren will pray for Jebus to save him from the cocksucking during the inaugural invocation.
Yeah, still bitter about that.
Question of the Day
What were the best and worst films you saw in 2008?
(Let's take that to mean films that were released in 2008, as opposed to films released in the '90s you're only now getting around to viewing.)
It seems like practically every movie I saw this year was a piece of crap, so it would be really hard to choose the worst, if I hadn't seen 20 minutes of 27 Dresses on cable. Holy Maude.
(And yet Bride Wars looks as though it has the capacity to make 27 Dresses look like a film adaptation of the S.C.U.M. manifesto.)
Best is probably The Dark Knight. Unless I can count Mongol, which only went into wide release in '08.
Offered With Barely Any Comment
Easy Does It, Ladies!
For my (barely any) comment,
I've been spending so much energy "keeping beautiful" lately, that all I can muster as commentary is this (apologies for any commercials):
From Crackle:
We're Not Feeling Her Pain
As you may have heard, John Travolta's and Kelly Preston's 16-year-old son, Jett, died over the weekend as a result of what appears to be a blow to the head received in the throes of a seizure.
This post isn't about the family, the circumstances of the death, Kawasaki disease vs. autism, Scientology, or conspiracy theories (and the comments thread shouldn't be, either)—so let's just leave all that mess aside.
What this post is about is something I've noticed about the coverage of the tragic event:
TMZ: John Travolta's Son Dies—"Rand Memorial Hospital in the Bahamas tells TMZ the son of John Travolta died today. We're told 16-year-old Jett was vacationing with Travolta and wife Kelly Preston."
AFP: John Travolta's teenage son dies in Bahamas—"The family of Oscar-nominated Hollywood superstar John Travolta took a devastating emotional blow when his teenage son died after a seizure while on a family vacation in the Bahamas, US media reported."
AP: John Travolta's 16-year-old son dies in Bahamas—"John Travolta's teenage son, Jett, died in the Bahamas after apparently suffering a seizure and hitting his head at his family's vacation home, authorities said Friday."
Reuters: Travolta "heartbroken" over son's death—"Actor John Travolta broke a two-day silence over the death of his 16-year-old son Jett on Sunday, saying he and his wife, actress Kelly Preston, were 'heartbroken' by their sudden loss."
ABC: Autopsy Today for John Travolta's Son—"On Sunday, John Travolta and his wife, Kelly Preston, issued their first public statement since Jett died Friday."
This one, care of Star magazine, really sums it up:
Headline: John Travolta's Son Dies
Image: Entire family.
Lede: "The son of John Travolta and Kelly Preston has died."
What?—there wasn't enough room for Kelly Preston's name in the headline, too? Oh, wait; there is:
Huh.
And this one, from the Daily Mail is great: 'My agony at losing my beloved boy': 'Heartbroken' John Travolta breaks silence over death of teenage son (original story headline since changed: "Tragedy for movie star John Travolta as 16-year-old son Jett dies on family holiday")—"John Travolta tonight revealed his agony at the sudden death of his teenage son Jett. In a statement on his website the Hollywood actor said he and his wife Kelly Preston, were 'heartbroken' by their sudden loss."
Wait—his wife is heartbroken, too? Amazing. Especially considering she's not just John Travolta's wife, but is Jett Travolta's mother, not that you'd know it from the news coverage of her son's death, in which she is repeatedly referred to (if at all) as "John Travolta's wife." I saw that in headlines and ledes so frequently over the past few days, I actually started to second-guess my thought that she was Jett's mom. (She is.)
And Kelly Preston is also pretty famous in her own right. (I know I'm kind of a walking IMDb, but I could name at least half a dozen of her films off the top of my head.) It's not like John Travolta is married to an investment banker; he's married to an actress whose name plenty of people would recognize, so the calculation seems to be she's just not famous enough to warrant her name in the headline, to warrant her grief being its own, beyond some collateral heartbreak of her husband's after losing "his" son.
It's rare I actually compliment CNN on sensitive coverage, but they got this one right: Actors' son Jett Travolta dies at 16—"The 16-year-old son of actors John Travolta and Kelly Preston died Friday morning after suffering a seizure while vacationing with his family in the Bahamas, Travolta's attorney told CNN."
Just moving that apostrophe from here—actor's—to here—actors'—makes all the difference. That's all it took, so simple, to avoid disappearing a mother and delivering a snide commentary on her career in the midst of a horrific personal crisis.
I'm sure some people would argue it doesn't matter—but I can think of few things more cruel than erasing the role of motherhood from a woman who's just lost her child, and I'm not sure it does any of us much good that we're so profoundly inured to such casual cruelty.
So…a little teaspoon of awareness never hurt anyone.
What Do You, the Viewers at Home Think?
A co-worker just brought this cartoon by my desk. (Note: the image above is only the final panel of the cartoon. Click through to see the whole thing.) My first reaction was "huh?" I couldn't see the joke. Then my next reaction was "Oh, so gay people are monsters; I get it. Gee, thanks" I might be reacting a little ultra-sensitively; my co-worker thinks it's an empowering thing that Frankenstein and his, ahem, "lover" are in the comic. Mainstream portrayal of gay couples and all that. Then I thought that maybe the joke is that the little green guy was upset because Frankenstein doesn't act like a monster; he's in a relationship and seems like a nice guy. Of course, they're stereotypical sissies and not monstrous, so maybe that's what's upsetting him, which isn't exactly the most empowering message, either. (For the record, the Frankensteins didn't return the next day, so they appear to be a one-off gag. This is the first time I've ever seen this particular comic strip, so I could be wrong.)
Anyway, I don't get it, my co-worker thinks I'm reading too much into it, and I'm beginning to feel like I'm running the Comics I Don't Understand page. It still looks like a joke at my expense, but what do I know; it looks like Fail to me. What do you think?
Update: I just found a few more comics with the Frankensteins, here, here, and here, so apparently they're not one-off characters. It looks more like the joke in the first one I saw comes from personality conflicts; the evil henchman monster is just put off by their "niceness," but I'm also seeing a lot of stereotyping.
Rar! Me humorless liberal!
I Write Letters
Dear Netflix,
I know about you. You can give it a rest with the pop-ups and pop-unders.
If I run into anyone who's just awoken from a decades-long coma or relocated from their last residence under a rock in uninhabited Siberia, I promise to tell them about you.
Love,
Liss
Quote of the Day
"He's a good man, Chris. He's a very good, strong man. I'd like to see him run, I'd like to see him be president someday, or maybe senator, whatever. I mean, right now is probably a bad time. We've had enough Bushes in there."—Papa George H.W. Bush, in an interview with Fox Fucknut Chris Wallace, on his desire to see son Jeb continue his political career.
He also noted, btw, that he understands if Jeb doesn't want to continue in politics because he "needs to make a living, support his wife and family." And who can do that on the paltry salary of a US Senator ($169,300) or US President ($400,000)?
Obamarama Transitionalicious-a-Go-Go Continues...
Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan will serve as Solicitor General for the Obama administration. Think Progress notes:
Kagan will be the first woman to serve permanently in this important post, which is tasked with conducting "all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts."Other key nominations to the Department of Justice include: David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General; Elena Kagan, Solicitor General; Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General; and Dawn Johnsen, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.
Johnsen served as the legal director of NARAL from 1988 to 1993.
Ready for a Big Laugh?
Warning: Put down your coffee, or other beverage, before reading:
John Bolton and John Yoo have written an Op-Ed stating that we have to limit executive authority.
America needs to maintain its sovereignty and autonomy, not to subordinate its policies, foreign or domestic, to international control. On a broad variety of issues — many of which sound more like domestic rather than foreign policy — the re-emergence of the benignly labeled “global governance” movement is well under way in the Obama transition.My sides!!! They actually used the word draconian!
Candidate Obama promised to “re-engage” and “work constructively within” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Will the new president pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate?
Draconian restrictions on energy use would follow. A majority of the Congress would be much easier for Mr. Obama to get than a supermajority of the Senate. A scholar at the Brookings Institution has already proposed that a new president overcome objections to this environmentalists’ holy grail by evading the Treaty Clause.
(Energy dome tip to John Cole.)
