GrrlScientist is an evolutionary biologist, ornithologist, aviculturist, birder and freelance science and nature writer. A native of the Pacific Northwest, she relocated from Seattle to NYC with her parrots after earning a BS in Microbiology (emphasis in Virology) and PhD in Zoology (Ornithology) from the University of Washington. In NYC, she was the Chapman Postdoctoral Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History for two years, pursuing part of her "dream" research project by reconstructing a molecular phylogeny of the parrots of the South Pacific islands. GrrlScientist has written a blog about science since 4 August 2004 (the early years are archived 
This worthless jackass claims to be my president.
George Bush; a hypocrite? Well, I am shocked, simply shocked, I tell you.
Well, okay, all sarcasm aside, I am very surprised to hear that the politically conservative George Bush, who demands mindless and unquestioning loyalty from his minions, has shown his true colors by betraying all those people who supported him throughout his entire political career: political conservatives. Today, Bush denied California state's bid to regulate greenhouse gas emissions produced by all new automobiles that are sold there -- a move that flies in the face of all true political conservatives who favor states' rights over the rights of the federal government.
What are states' rights? Basically, this notion, based in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, allows individual states to pass more stringent laws than those enacted at the federal level, although (sadly) states do not have the right to enact more lenient laws than those enacted at the federal level. Unfortunately, no one informed California and the other 15 states that also seek to enact this more stringent automobile emissions law that their states' rights do not extend to interfering with corporate profit margins.
Under Bush's energy bill, fuel efficiency for new cars and light trucks will increase 40% by 2020, an average of 35 mpg, which is the biggest congressionally ordered increase since the fuel economy program was created in 1975 (nevermind that the polar ice caps will likely have melted completely by 2020 due to global warming caused by greenhouse emissions). However, California's efforts are more stringent than this federal law, mandating an average fuel efficiency of 36 mpg to occur four years earlier. Thus, California and the other 15 states are well within their constitutional rights as preached by the political conservatives in this country.
So today, Bush proved (to anyone who is still observing his irrational and contradictory antics) that he is not a true political conservative as he has loudly professed, but instead, he is nothing more than a sheep in wolf's clothing, a mindless sheep in the hands of his corporate puppetmasters. Or perhaps more accurately, Bush is nothing more than a common hooker wandering the streets at two in the morning hoping to have a few extra dollars trucked into his bra before sunrise. If the polical conservatives in this country are not outraged by this insult to their philosophies, then I will be outraged at their complicity and moral turpitude.
Baa, baa, baa!
Source
LATimes (pie chart).
Politics
Comments
Ah, but the **true conservatives** would be against California's regulations simply because they are regulations. They want the magic market fairies to fix AGW.
Posted by: natural cynic | December 21, 2007 3:52 AM
Not sure I agree with calling him a whore.
Rather insulting to real whores who are often forced in various ways to sell their services.
Also whores actually do provide a service for the money taken and under often dangerous conditions.
Now, one could argue that Bush sells his services without regard to his oath of office (part of which was to uphold and defend the constitution, IIRC) but circumstances aren't actually forcing him to do so.
Pecuniary advantage may be his aim, as it is for the whore, then again he may just be stupid (I don't think he is that stupid).
Also, if selling his services, Bush is under no danger either physically, mentally or politically from your senate/congress.
Talking about politicians doing stupid/bad things and selling out; the US science budget is now out, seems US senators and congressfolk aren't interested in science. Oddly enough it wasn't Bush who hacked the funding, appears the Reps & Dems weren't willing to forgo their pork barrel http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/12/19/2008-is-looking-bleak
On the states rights issue, can the Courts not overturn Bush's decision? If it is unconstitutional it surely cannot stand?
Posted by: Chris' Wills | December 21, 2007 4:47 AM
Maybe California should try to ban abortion or gay marriage. Then the Bush administration would stand up for their state's rights. :-/
I was pleased, however, to see Congress boldly require car makers to slowly amble toward the elusive goal of manufacturing cars that get fuel mileage almost as good as my 1989 Honda Civic 4-door. Or exactly as good as the Fiat 124g 4-door my dad bought in 1968.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | December 21, 2007 8:26 AM
Where did that photo of Bush come from? Did someone invent a camera that sees the true nature of a person?
I think the Bush administration is actually conforming to the current nature of conservatism. Today what that means is corporatism. It's hard to believe the republican party once had leaders like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
Posted by: Mark P | December 21, 2007 9:09 AM
Not to burst anyone's bubble, or impede anyone from venting about our Worst-President-Ever (TM), but the legal anaysis here isn't exactly right. States do NOT have any sort of comprehensive "Constitutional" right stemming from the 10th Amendment to pass more stringent laws than the federal government. Quite to the contrary, the federal government has the authority to govern anything happening in the course of "interstate commerce", an authority it's used to regulate everything from environmental safety issues to civil rights to anticompetitive business activity.
The Clean Air Act grants California (alone, at present) the right to pass more stringent air emissions standards than the rest of the country, and it further allows other states to choose between the federal limits and the California limits.
What's going on here is something different. California is trying to be the first-mover to regulate greenhouse gases, the regulatory status of which under the CAA is still in flux, per recent USA v. Massachusettes decision among other things. The "reasonable" response by the federal government might be to say that California cannot be the first to regulate these emissions because it would have an impact (a big one) on interstate commerce and the federal government should take the lead on this issue.
The legality of that response is debatable. But all Bush probably is trying to do is buy time for his wealthy coterie of donors in certain industries (and in states other than California that actually tend to vote Republican), in this case about 13 months until the new administration inherits the problem.
Posted by: Jim G | December 21, 2007 11:05 AM
The Bush administration's decision to reject California's petition is almost certainly going to be overturned in the courts. Sen. Boxer on PBS Newshour said the EPA is going to be sued so quick it will make their heads spin.
Environmental groups and state attorney generals are having a field day in the courts. The Bush administration might be winning in the legislative and executive branches but they are getting their butts kicked in the courts.
Posted by: JPS | December 21, 2007 1:16 PM
A comment by a European girl with a European car (well, European model). I own a Ford Focus from 1999. It's a very average car for European standards. It drives 100 kilometres on 7,8 litre. That's 30 U.S. miles per 1 U.S. gallon.
How about U.S. standard cars?
Posted by: Cecile Weekly | December 29, 2007 12:55 PM