( – promoted by JDRyan)

Former Reagan Justice official and GOP beltway powerhouse lawyer Victoria Toensing has been hitting the circuit hard of late, and some speculate she may be auditioning (or being auditioned?) for Alberto Gonzales’ job, should he get the boot (which I still doubt, but I’m cynical that way). Somehow or other, Toensing has been tagged as the point person on defense during the Democrat-initiated resurrection of the Valerie Plame affair in the US House. Toensing popped up with a widely circulated WaPo piece which was easily debunkable GOP rhetori-babble, but got real appreciation from the left when she appeared in front of Rep. Waxman’s committee this week and did exactly what lefties hoped she would do; regurgitate long-refuted, defensive, snarling GOP nonsense in the face of all reality and objective facts with an almost stereotypically shifty, smarmy and nasty style that will make for excellent blogosphere distribution.

In other words, she aced the Team Bush audition.

But GMD visitors who were here last election season will remember another Toensing from the Washington family firm who has also made the rounds on the talk circuit as part of the National GOP attack machine – Charlotte Zoning Board of Adjustment Chair (and Brian Dubie’s schedule-vetter and problem-solver), attorney Brady Toensing, former staffer for Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH).

Son Brady is every bit the attack-dog that his mom is, and an Attorney General Toensing (either one, frankly) would fit right into the Bush way of government.

Of the many examples (such as Victoria pushing the Lewinsky scandal, or Brady supporting Bush’s “enemy combatant” designation), there was one that struck me as having an interesting symmetry with current events. During the 90’s, former DNC Chair Donald Fowler was getting well-deserved grief for selling access to President Clinton for campaign contributions. Fowler was sleazy and caught hell (for, of course, pulling the same crap that the GOP did), but The Toensings weren’t going to let the opportunity go by without maximum exploitation.

In a strange case of historical themes echoing themselves, the Toensings were actively working with an anonymous CIA staffer to promote a book capitalizing on the scandal and promoting allegations that Fowler had attempted to get individuals in the CIA to help a major donor (the same matter that tanked Anthony Lake’s bid to become CIA chief). The Toensings were, of course, determined to get all the political mileage they could regardless of concerns over CIA classified information. From the NYT:

The C.I.A. has blocked publication of the manuscript, arguing that it contains too much classified material about agency operations. Since the author submitted the manuscript to be cleared in December, the agency’s publications review board has repeatedly demanded numerous changes, despite a requirement that the review process be completed in 30 days. Current and former C.I.A. officials are required by law to seek agency clearance for books or articles they publish to ensure that they don’t divulge classified information.

[The author] said he now believes that the agency’s demands have been so excessive that the manuscript can’t be published in its current form.

The author and his Washington lawyer, Victoria Toensing, have appealed the decisions of the review board to the agency’s executive director. In the meantime, Harper Collins, the New York publisher, has canceled its contract to publish the manuscript, a spokeswoman for the publisher said.

Disputes between the agency and [the Author] and his attorney over the manuscript have intensified in recent days, after security personnel demanded to retrieve copies of a letter Ms. Toensing had written to the agency’s executive director relating to the manuscript. An agency spokesman said the incident was prompted by the fact that the C.I.A. believed the letter contained classified information, and Ms. Toensing had sent the letter to the agency over an unclassified fax machine.

However, Ms. Toensing said in an interview today that she had been using the same fax to communicate with the agency on matters related to the manuscript for months.

A C.I.A. security official called Ms. Toensing’s office and talked to her son, Brady Toensing, who is also a lawyer, since Ms. Toensing was traveling at the time. The security officer said she wanted to search the law office’s files and computer hard drives for classified information, according to Mr. Toensing. He said he denied the request.

Looking at this history, I suppose the Toensings perspective on the outing of CIA agent Plame has relevence after all…

(crossposted at five before chaos)

It’s got to be hard to be a conservative, especially nowadays. It seems like the only way they can get out of bed in the morning is to exist in some alternate reality… you know, the one where ‘they attack us because they hate our freedoms’, ‘the Founding Fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation’, ‘intelligent design is real science’, ‘supporting the troops means keeping them in Iraq’,’George W. Bush is a fine Christian man of integrity’, ‘if we would just let the markets decide, everything would be fine’, and the latest doozie, courtesy of Charity at ‘She’s Right’, ‘global warming is not caused by humans’.

Apparently, there was a documentary on the BBC’s Channel recently, called ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, which basically says that the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming is a lie. Turns out, it’s yet another right wing propaganda hit-piece that plays loose with the facts. Like most classic propaganda targeting right-wingers, it even plays to their sense of perpetual victimhood, driving home the point that ‘you are being told lies.’

The documentary was directed by self-proclaimed ‘living Marxist’ (whatever the hell that is) Martin Durkin, who also directed a BBC series in 1997 called ‘Against Nature’, which dismisses environmentalists as anti-progress, and believe that sustainable development practices are a ‘conspiracy against people’. So his ideology should be quite apparent.

The UK Independent did an investigation of the ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, and found that it: 

“was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme’s thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial “lie” foisted on the public.”

But, that’s just the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg. One of the central figures in the program was MIT oceanographer Carl Wunsch, has come out strongly about how his views were edited and presented so as to give a misleading account of his actual views. He discusses it in a piece here, ‘I Should Have Never Trusted Channel 4’ and also in a letter to the producer:

Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled—please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change—in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs — thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

My appearance in the “Global Warming Swindle” is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped—an uncomfortable position in which to be.

Aside from the misrepresentation of Wunsch and the almost constant use of bad data, there’s a host of other faulty data in the show. Medialens has an exhaustive analysis of the mind-numbingly false and misrepresented data in the film, too much to list here, but a few nuggets just to give you an idea:

The film repeatedly gave the impression that mainstream science argues  that CO2 is the sole driver of rising temperatures in the  Earth’s climate system. But this is not the case. Climate scientists are  well aware that solar activity plays a role, though a minor one at present,  as do long-term periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit, known as Milankovitch  cycles. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/  wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly supports  the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most important,  are primarily responsible for recent global  warming. The 4th and most recent scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes: 

  “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures  since the mid-20th century is very likely [.i.e. probability greater than  90%] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”  (‘Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,’ Summary for Policymakers,  IPCC, February 2007, page 10; www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) 

 
We then come to one of the film’s most misleading arguments. Antarctic  ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind  temperature rises at specific times in the geological past. This, argued  Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming – instead  global warming is responsible for increasing levels of CO2. But this was  a huge howler.

What Durkin’s film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag happened  at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years. (See: www.realclimate.org/index.php/  archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores)

I can’t help but wonder if some American conservatives are so against the global warming thing just simply due to the fact that Al Gore has played such an important role in increasing its awareness. If right-wingnut Sam Brownback was extolling its dangers, I can’t help but to think they wouldn’t be so skeptical. I’m surprised John McLaughry hasn’t referred to this film, considering his fetish-like obsession with discredited facts and such. But when reality has such a tendency to contradict much of one’s worldview, sometimes the only way to deal with it is to make up an alternate one.

It’s going to take a lot more than one shabby piece of factually-challenged propaganda to turn the tide of an overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists (with the exception of those on the payroll of Big Oil, of course), and there’s also that major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I guess what you believe depends on whether your biases or your capacity for critical thinking skills are the stronger cognitive impulses in your worldview. And, no, just to cut some of you off, I’m not saying we shouldn’t debate these things. And I’m not saying people don’t have a right to their opinions, or even the right to spread misleading propaganda. But it would be much more helpful if the global-warming deniers would actually do their homework before coming to the table.

“Facts are stupid things.” – Ronald Reagan, 1988 Republican National Convention

Of all the candidates for president, the one I am most strongly attracted to has been John Edwards. He is clear, articulate, and committed on the centrality of the need to attack and eliminate poverty, both in the United States and around the world. He has an articulated plan for universal health care. Although he was wrong on Iraq, he has admitted that he was wrong, something that Clinton has not done.

There is a big issue, though, and I’m not at all sure I can get past it, at least not in the primaries. One of my biggest public policy concerns has been the tendencies of the United States to move towards theocracy. It’s most prominent in the Republican Party, and you see it in tons of Bush’s policies, not only his giveaway programs to church groups, but also his reflexive description of the need to launch a “crusade” against our enemies.

The Democrats are afraid of this trend nationally. Unfortunately, it’s not that they’re afraid that the trends will continue, it’s more that they don’t want to get on the wrong side of the religious voters, and they fall all over themselves to avoid it. This is why Pete Stark’s announcement last week was such a big deal.

That’s the problem I have with Edwards. Here’s what he says on belief.net:

Would it be your hope that a John Edwards Supreme Court would allow public schools to encourage more prayer in schools?

What I’m not in favor of is for a teacher to go to the front of the classroom and lead the class in prayer. Because I think that by definition means that that teacher’s faith is being imposed on children who will almost certainly come from different faith beliefs. Allowing time for children to pray for themselves, to themselves, I think is not only okay, I think it’s a good thing.

And there’s more:

So the answer is I think is that in an Edwards presidency faith-based groups, I believe, could be used. But I think it is also tricky business. I think you have to be careful about how you implement it for all of the separation of church and state issues, because you don’t want discrimination. You don’t want federal money going to any organization, including a faith-based group, that’s discriminating. So, you have to be very careful about that.

But, the bottom line is, if you can work through these problems, I think there is a great potential delivery system there.

It has always been true that people’s religious beliefs have influenced their political positions and actions, and that’s not going to change. You can’t even say that it’s necessarily a good or a bad thing, since religious beliefs have supported everything from Martin Luther King’s activism for social justice to the bigotry and repression excmplified by Jerry Falwell or the racism of Bob Jones University.

The problem is that people want power, and they will use religion to get it, and to insulate themselves from the normal political checks on their activities. In this interview Edwards is not only demonstrating a lack of appreciation for fundamental constitutional principles, but also a level of naivete that would make me very concerned about him for president.

I just read a newsletter with a pretty bleak perspective on the state of education funding reform from the VPP. I did however, like some of the alternative ideas they put forth, shared below…

A pre-town meeting report from the committee had acknowledged that most of the cost drivers of public education are caused by the poverty of too many Vermont families.  Schools must provide meals, counseling, substance abuse prevention, and even warm clothes. Yet the proposed bill would simply punish local school districts for doing their job and following the law.

Entitled “An Act Relating To Education Quality And Cost Control,” the draft bill would increase the penalties for schools that happen to have too many children with special needs.  Towns like Bethel provide the affordable housing for low-wage workers employed in Woodstock, White River Jct. and Hanover, N.H.  Special education costs are not optional.  It is no secret that children from poor and single-parent families are more likely to need special ed and other social services.  A school that fails to provide needed services to a child faces expensive legal challenges.

…

In fact, what we really need to do is shift all special ed funding to a statewide pool to reflect Vermont’s obligation to all its special needs children.  The happenstance of where a family finds housing should not subject one town to excess spending penalty, while another slides under the threshold.  If the state believes that some towns are over-identifying special needs students, let the Dept. of Education make that determination in the first instance, and not second-guess and penalize Vermont towns.

I have two questions for this esteemed panel:

1-agree?
2-if yes to 1, why aren’t we heading in that direction?

I just finished watching a movie called “Turtles can Fly” which was an Iraqi-Iranian movie.  It’s difficult for me to summarize the movie, other than to say it is about the effects of war on the children of the region.

http://www.metacriti…

After seeing the movie I was watching the snow fall outside and realizing how peaceful it was here and yet how disturbed I am about everything that is going on now.  Then I asked myself the question: “What is the quality of my consciousness?”

We have been hurt in so many ways by George Bush and the Republicans.  It’s much bigger than them, of course, because we do it to ourselves every day.  When we focus on money we lose focus on quality.  The more we focus on quantity, whether it is troops in Iraq or dollars for the mortgage, the more the quality of our consciousness deteriorates.  It’s a subtle, slow deterioriation which happens over time.

I feel so cheated. I remember times when my consciousness was much clearer, much more focused on hopefulness and positive realities.  Now it looks like we are going deeper into war and depression.  It feels like such an evil spell has been cast upon us.  How will we break this spell?

What needs to be done?  We need a new system but this one must fail before we can get it.  That seems to be the truth.  Is it true?  Is that the truth of our situation?  Are we waiting for the fall, lacking the courage to do anything until it happens?  Are we waiting for Armegeddon?  Is there a better alternative?

What needs to be done?

The Center for Economic Policy Research has released a new report on understanding low wage employment.

Over 40 million jobs in the United States – about 1 in 3 – pay low wages ($11.11 per hour or less) and often do not offer employment benefits like health insurance, retirement savings accounts, paid sick days or family leave. These low-wage jobs are replacing jobs that have historically supported a broad middle class.  This report provides a clear and sobering picture of the low-wage labor market through analysis of labor market data, including: downward wage trends over time, poor work conditions, largest occupations, and declining mobility. The authors used a social inclusion definition of low-wage work that allows for comparison among jobs in the United States.

Report pdf

Get the real story here.