More strigent regulations for car emissions?

[greenie_breizh]

Obama to let states set auto emission rules.

Why on earth the Environmental Protection Agency would not let California set efficiency standards more stringent than for the rest of the U.S., I don't have a fucking clue, but this is a small step in the right direction. A right message for the Obama administration to send, for sure, So torture and illegal detention, check. Women's rights, check. Environment, check. Wanna place bets on what's next? ^^

(More environmental stuff would be nice if you ask me because let's face it, as much as this sends the right message, it really doesn't do much.)


One thing - I can't remember from reading the news before the inauguration - did the press used to say "Bush to let chickens fight"? Because that's what they do with Obama ("Obama to let chickens fight"), but I keep feeling like it should be "President X to let chickens fight"... like every time they quote people with a title they add Sen. or Rep. in front of their names, but with the President they only go "Obama"? It's pure curiosity, I just can't remember if they used to say "Bush" all the time or if they usually mentioned "Pres." or something in front of his name.

Comments

[shiraz_wine]

I find it funny that you mentioned whether they put Pres. in front of Bush's name considering that a couple of days after the Inauguration, I heard a show on the radio where a man referred to Obama as "Senator Obama ... I mean, President Obama."

For the most part, news articles don't tend to mention honorary titles like Pres. or Sen. or Rep. in the title of the article, but they're definitely there in the body of the article.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

But that's the weird thing, if you look at that article for example, they don't use Pres. even in the body of the article. That's what throws me off I think, though I was wondering about the title as well. Hm.

[shiraz_wine]

I looked at the article and it definitely uses "President Obama" and "former President Bush" in the body of the article (as well as Sen. George Voinovich). The only time they don't use titles are in the hyperlinks to other articles; is that what you're referring to?

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

From the article itself (on top the links you're referring to):

"It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil," Obama said.

Besides the EPA waivers, Obama also called for automakers to increase their fuel efficiency standards nationwide.

It's these two especially that threw me off a little, I think. It sounds just like how they'd quote him before he became President. Again, that might be standard practice, I don't know. It just felt strange to me they wouldn't always say "President Obama" or at least use Pres.

[shiraz_wine]

No, news articles don't always put the title in front of the president's name. As long as they do refer to them as the president within the body of the article, they don't have to do it every single time they use their name. It's the same with any political official.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Ok, cool. :) I think it's because I'm so used to reading stuff about Obama even before he was elected or sworn in that there's a part of me that expects news article to be constantly reminding me that yes, this is for realz. ;)

[lounalune.livejournal.com]

DOMA! I bet for DOMA next!

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

lol! Between DOMA and DADT I think he would go for DADT first. I think you can put a less controversial spin on that since gays are ALREADY in the military, right now they just don't have a right to say it.

[lounalune.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I guess you're right with DADT. DOMA must be wishfull thinking. Especially since he's not really for gay marriage either... But I still don't believe DOMA's gonna pass with him around.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

What do you mean? DOMA was passed years ago, under the Clinton administration. It's different from a federal same-sex marriage ban, which I'm not worried about, certainly not under this President. I strongly suspect he doesn't support same-sex marriage officially because, especially during the campaign, that would have been a campaign killer. But now he's President? It's a whole other ballgame. I'm not sure to what extent he can overturn DOMA on his own, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did (if he can).

[lounalune.livejournal.com]

Oops, I somehow had gotten DOMA mixed up with the federal same-sex ban... *Goes to do some research.*

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

DOMA is the Defense Of Marriage Act. It means that the federal state does NOT recognize same-sex marriage. So for example gay couples in Massachusetts get all the state benefits of being married, but not the federal benefits. The Clinton admin passed it because it was seen as a protection in case some states legalized same-sex marriage - it made it certain that other states would not be forced to recognize it. Basically it's bullshit and needs to be overturned, and it would send a strong message in favor of same-sex unions, but in itself it doesn't do all that much (except for the few thousands married couples across the nation, arguably).

[lounalune.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was just screening through the wikipedia article. Clinton, I wasn't really following politics much, especially American politics, while you were president, but I somehow had a pretty positive image of you. Idiot.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the Clinton admin also passed DADT, though arguably at the same it was a vague improvement. There is a lot of political pressures from everywhere when it comes to this topic, and I'm not making excuse for him, I greatly disliked that he did both, but it's incredible how much context matters. Just like Obama and same-sex marriage. No matter what he thinks, until he was President he couldn't get away with supporting it. It's ridiculous.