(crossposted at five before chaos)

Now, I’m not trying to be a jerk or aggressive here because I really like her personally, but Charity’s blog, She’s Right, has been the gift that keeps on giving lately. I read about her announcement about an S. Fred Singer, PhD, who is giving a talk at UVM on March 28th at 7 pm in the Ira Allen Chapel, called, “500-Year Natural Cycle or Disaster Of Our Own Doing? – A look at the science and politics of global warming”. So considering the source and the coded wording, my bullshit detector started beeping, so it was time to dig around.

See, Dr. Singer’s got quite the career of being a p.r. hack for big, harmful corporations. He first rose to prominence as a a flack for big tobacco:

Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies. In 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: “As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively …”

The 1994 AdTI report was part of an attack on EPA regulation of environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. Singer was also involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris’ plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Singer is also a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, another recipient of Philip Morris and ExxonMobil funds.

A nonsmoker himself, Singer serves on the Science Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). The ACSH strongly opposes smoking but otherwise tends to support industry positions on health issues, for example downplaying risks associated with dioxin, asbestos, and other carcinogenic materials.

This guy’s a bad dude. But there’s more. His foundations and work have been funded by hard-right ideologue Richard Mellon Scaife, and also by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s organization. He has played a pivotal role in the above mentioned TASSC, whose main purpose was to spread the idea of environmental science as being ‘junk science’.  He was also in the employ of the Tobacco Institute’s ‘Whitecoats Project’, their effort to discredit the environmental risks of tobacco smoke with the use of scientists. Although it’s a lengthy read, there’s a huge study of this here, if you’re more interested. It’s amazing, the depth and breadth that these people went to do this.

So, that’ s just tobacco. Singer’s been at the forefront of global warming denial, not surprising, considering just about everything the man has done on the subject has been funded (here, here, and here) in one way or another by the big polluting and petrochemical companies.

But aside from that, he can’t even get the science right. Contrary to the evidence, he claims that the glaciers are advancing (not retreating as they have been since about 1850). And the one article he used as a source for that information was found not to even exist, by journalist George Monbiot. Needless to say, if you read even some of what I’ve pointed you too, it’s obvious where this man’s interests really lie. His rhetoric is typical right-wing bullshit that could have come from Townhall.com or FoxNews. Also, from the above Exxon Secrets site you can get a taste… tell me if you haven’t heard this all before, such as the ‘Global Warming is Good For You ‘ argument…

Or the ‘Al Gore’s Nefarious Liberal Agenda’ conspiracy (and he trusts the judgment of Bush if that tells you anything)…

“The irony is that there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming…Mr Gore and company are stirring the pot, trying to create public anxiety in order to impose a form of energy rationing on the economy – like the recently defeated Senate bill of McCain-Lieberman, which would have forced a cap on emissions, equivalent to an energy tax. President George W. Bush has termed such a policy ‘fatally flawed’.”
Source: “Climate concern is just a tax ruse,” Financial Times 11/26/03

So his little propaganda speech may be interesting, no? Now, why do I keep bringing this up? Because one of the typical whines from the right-wingers on global warming is that we’re not ‘allowing a debate’, similar to the argument Intelligent Design advocates make (when in actuality, there is no ‘debate’ in the scientific community – there’s an overwhelming consensus in regards to ID not being science). But here’s my point- Why is it that it seems like every single person that they present either has major ties and funding to the polluting industries, presents faulty/incorrect data, or both? Why is that?

Well, apparently, there’s a whole ‘industry of denial’ built up around debunking global warming. In last year’s ‘Heat’, by George Monbiot, he meticulously connects the dots and lays it all out, beginning with this:

ExxonMobil is the world’s most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what’s its strategy?

And part of that strategy?

On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study – such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday – and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

He also mentions that bogus Oregon Petition that Vermont’s own blowhard corporate apologist, John McLaughry, has cited as a credible source. As one who holds science as one of humanity’s best accomplishments and ways of finding the truth, believe me, I really do want a scientist to come forward with a compelling argument. But it seems impossible to find one that isn’t tainted in one way or another. And it bears repeating: 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. And that seems to be what many (but most definitely not all) conservatives are doing.

If you’re interested more on what organizations are funded by the industry, have a look at ‘Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer’.

UPDATE:  Whoa, it seems there actually might be some truth to the ‘Al Gore global warming conspiracy’.

This Saturday morning, Vermont Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin (D-Windham) will address the Democratic State Committee – where he will discuss one of the most important issues facing our country – the Constitutional crisis posed by an out of control President.

Senator Peter Shumlin may discuss other topics as well – such as the property taxes that affect us all, but he also plans to ask the committee to urge the legislature to begin the solemn process of repairing the US Constitution. For this, he will ask the committee to urge the legislature to transmit an impeachment resolution to the US house.

Senator Shumlin has opened a dialog with House Leader Gaye Symington (D-Jericho), urging her to let the bill (which seems to be under lock-down) in the House Judiciary Committee to come to the floor.

Follow me below the fold…

The following resolution is on the agenda for the State Democratic Committee meeting:

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2006 the Vermont Democratic State Committee by unanimous vote adopted a resolution calling for the impeachment, trial and removal from office of George W. Bush, President of the United States, and directing the State Committee Secretary to send the resolution to the Vermont General Assembly for “appropriate action”, and

WHEREAS, twenty-one members of the Vermont House, including many Democrats, are co-sponsoring Joint Resolution 15 (JRH 15) that incorporates substantially most of the April 8, 2006 State Committee resolution, and

WHEREAS,  on February 15, 2007 JRH 15 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it awaits action, and

WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007 more than three dozen Vermont towns passed resolutions calling for the impeachment, trial and removal of George W. Bush as President of the United States, and

WHEREAS, the State Committee recognizes that a President can abuse his or her authority and power, thereby oppressing the people, diminishing
their liberties, imperiling their lives and impoverishing their substance in illegal wars and conflicts, all in subversion  of the Constitution and the rule of law, and

WHEREAS such abuses and subversions can, and should, be checked and restrained by the Constitutional engine and remedy of impeachment,

NOW THEREFORE, the Vermont Democratic State Committee strongly supports and advocates, as “appropriate action” early passage of JRH 15 for the State of Vermont, under Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice, for the US House of Representatives to submit as soon as possible impeachment charges against George W. Bush for his trial and removal as President of the United States.

There will likely be a friendly amendment when it’s introduced, adding Vice President Cheney to the list of impeachable characters.

The bill in the House had an identical twin sitting ready in the Senate (it’s a joint resolution – meaning it comes from both halves of the legislature).

Oddly enough, THAT version has also been stuffed into committee to die with no action.

The committee chairs in both houses swear they will not let the resolution see the light of day. They will not allow the people we elected to discuss and vote on this essential piece of legislation, legislation that the people of Vermont asked them to write.

Rumor has it that the pressure on them has come from above – Senators Leahy and Sanders, who have served us so well at the national level over the years, don’t want to have to deal with the messy process of permanently ending the precedents set by this President. Precedents such as:

• Invention of the Magical Signing Statement Pen – which Mr. Bush believes gives him the power to legislate from the oval office, even though the Constitution says that’s illegal.
• Ignoring Article 6 of the Constitution, which turns any treaty we sign – even the Geneva Conventions against torture – into Federal Law.
• Taking away the right to freedom of speech, having people arrested or barred from events because of the words on a shirt, or the bumper stickers on a car, or the political party to which they belong.
• Taking away the right to freedom of assembly, by stuffing people in to mini-prisons, and insultingly calling them “free speech zones.”
• Taking away not just the right to a speedy trial, not just the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, but your right to a trial at all, your right to know the charges against you, and your right to see or hear the evidence against you.
• Taking away your right to privacy, and worse doing so in direct violation of the law that was passed in direct after Nixon’s out-of-control spying on innocent people, and even worse, doing so intentionally, and even worse, when he got caught, saying he’ll continue to break the law.
• Diverting troops and funds from a war to capture those who attacked us to a new one against innocents, killing and wounding thousands upon thousands, and causing grave injury to our Democracy.
• And so much more …

As a matter of fact, there are so many ways in which this President has violated the law and threatened the Constitution – the only protection between us and dictatorship – that entire books are required to catalog them all.

Some are afraid that using tough love on President Temper-Tantrum will be unpopular, that it could cost them votes. But in those places around the country where a few brave souls ran for office with a “get tough” stance, they’ve won. Even in our neighboring red state, New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Carol-Shea Porter handily beat Jean Shaheen, her much better funded Democratic opponent. Shea-Porter beat the candidate who played it safe, the one followed the conventional wisdom that said “don’t stand strong against this President.”

It turns out that the “wisdom” derived from fear was unwise. The people see what the media doesn’t report. The talking heads on TV may spin and smear, but they DO NOT speak for us.

So thank you to Peter Shumlin for taking a stand against the very conventional “wisdom” that failed Jean Shaheen, is failing our legislators, and is failing our country.

Speaker Symington needs to let the existing bill out of committee, allow the House to vote on it, and get the little waiver needed to send it to the Senate.

In the House, Representative David Zuckerman (P-Burlington) is advocating for the bill to be released from committee. The bill in that body needs to also emerge for a vote.

And then the Joint Resolution needs to be sent to our Freshman Congressman, Peter Welch, who can take his place in history, by beginning the process of healing our wounded Democracy.

It’s time to put this administration on the short leash.

What does it mean to be a Vermonter these days?  Is it residing in the state?  Is it that your family has been here for generations?  Do you have an in-depth knowledge of Vermont’s formitive years as the Republic of Vermont?

There is no litmus test for real Vermonters these days.  Anyone can call themselves what they want, it’s a fascade really.  Real Vermonters are typified by what they endure.  The reality is Vermont is a state of many hardships.

Stephen A. Douglas besides debating Lincoln was a native of Brandon, Vermont.  His famous quote went “Vermont is a great place to grow up, provided you leave shortly thereafter.”  This is as true today as the 1800’s when Vermont first started loosing its native son’s and daughters.  Vermont began documenting a loss in the 1820’s as canals opened the way to the west.

Today we loose Vermonters because of economic disadvantage.  Wages are low, good jobs and gainful employ are few.  The costs associated with living here are outrageous.

The problem is Vermont is dominated by low paying service jobs because we are a “tourist state”.  These jobs are most often seasonal, and very few come with benefits.  We need winter and summer clothes, fuel and transportation costs drive up other goods.  We need heat in winter, and energy year-round, very little of which comes from here in Vermont.  It is a lose, lose situation.

There is the problem of land and taxes here in Vermont.  Land is sold at the premium development price here, that often Vermonters are unable to buy into.  People who want to put up a house, have a couple kids, maybe a small farm, are being crowded out by McMansions and Condo’s.  On top of this you add some of the highest property taxes in the nation.  Not to mention our sales and excise taxes.

Vermont is dominated by a consumer economy, there is a trade imbalance across our states borders.  We produce all sorts of specialty products for export, but need to import nearly all the things we require to live here.

The Yankee tradition of making do has gone by the wayside and we’ve moved on to bigger, better, even broadband, in the backwoods.

What have we lost along with those landless son’s and daughters?  Look around, the signs are everywhere, community is what has suffered.  When a town needed something done they pitched in and made it happen.  Now its who’s the low bid, and where can we get grant money or aid.

Local control used to be something Vermonters prided themselves in, but now most of our decisions are being made in Montpelier and Washington.  How many can say they like the decisions that are being made?

As a youth I had but one dream and that was to grow up, live, and die, in the town I was raised.  My future in Vermont is questionable.  I’m getting married this year, and Vermont is a hard place to start out.

All I ever wanted was to be near my family, and now it feels like I’m being forced out by the economic costs of being a Vermonter.

New Hampshire Republican Senator John Sununu has just called for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. While it is remarkable for a Republican Senator to be in the forefront of calls for Gonzales to step down, it is more a sign of Sununu’s political pragmatism and his understanding of the new political realities in his home state.
Last fall (after the New Hampshire Democratic party made impeachment part of their platform), for the first time in decades, New Hampshire voted Democratic from one end to the other. Sununu has to recognize and account for this shift. He has to own up to the fact that New Hampshire folks can tell when they’re being lied to, and when they’re being sold a bill of goods. This administration has been doing both and Sununu would defend them at his peril.
  How ironic that across the river in Vermont, where 40 Vermont towns have now called for impeachment, where citizens have been lobbying their state legislature every day to get an impeachment resolution out of the Vermont House Judiciary committee, our Congressman, Democrat Peter Welch has decided that it is not practical or effective to consider impeachment, and that there is no need to even have this debate. The Democrat is affording more protection to George Bush than is his Republican counterpart. For that matter, Mr. Welch’s refusal to invoke his constitutional rights and duties directly protects Mr. Bush while doing damage to the Constitution.
  Mr. Welch instead pins his hopes on amendments to spending bills, or resolutions calling for a date to have the troops withdrawn. Mr. Welch is aware that the Republicans have the votes to uphold any Presidential veto. Furthermore, Secretary Rice has flatly stated that regardless of what Congress may say, the President will execute this war as he sees fit.
  The only action that Congress can take that will have any meaning and any chance of success is to issue articles of impeachment. Mr. Welch could make himself a hero to our state and to the nation.
  How could this Vermont freshman member withstand the fury of Pelosi that would undoubtedly come his way in response to introducing articles of impeachment? Consider this; in the last election, Welch was able to beat Republican Martha Rainville in part because a strong Progressive party challenger decided not to run. If Welch stands for the Constitution and calls for impeachment, he would earn principle credentials with many in Vermont who have been disappointed in him in the recent past. It would help him get a chance at a second term. If he stays loyal to the Pelosi plan, and is cast as another establishment Democrat, then he almost certainly will face a strong three way race for re-election. Would Pelosi prefer a maverick Democrat, or another Republican to represent Vermont?
  We can only raise the volume, and trust that our representatives will hear before it’s

( – 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