Hats off to Vermonter Bill McKibben. As of late, he’s been pushing the White House hard to put the solar panels that Jimmy Carter put on the White House, and Ronald Reagan later took down, back up.

From a press release on the Atlantic:

As of Thursday morning the Administration has offered to meet with McKibben and his team and says they are discussing the proposal to put solar back on the White House roof. “We keep hearing, ‘We’ll see’ and ‘It’s complicated,'” McKibben said. “Compared with the other things Obama has to do, it seems relatively easy. You can’t filibuster the roof.”

Here’s to hoping Bill gets Obama on board, and a big thanks for his efforts, too. More on that campaign here.

(note: Julie posted a diary about Dean’s comment as I was writing up mine – she brings up some great points about idiocy, but I think there’s something else worth mentioning – JD)



We all know the typical Republican playbook by now: come up with some sexy wedge issue that has nothing to do with the lives of 99.9999999% of the population, but get it out into the right-wing noise machine so it dominates the news cycle ad nauseum and tears away millions of Americans from Dancing With The Stars long enough to vent their poutrage. Then that becomes the story.

Nothing in recent memory has stuck in my craw and reminded me how America really is becoming Redneck Nation more than this “Ground Zero Mosque” nonsense. I’ve never seen so many politicians squirm, equivocate, and pander over something so inconsequential. The meme du jour: “they have the right to, but they shouldn’t”.  The latest purveyor of this crap? Howard Dean.

More below the jump.

It’s not just the teabaggers. A lot of polling is suggesting that Americans don’t want the Cordoba House built. And that’s just ducky, because oddly enough, there’s also a majority of people who believe they have the right to.

So, of course, we’re seeing politician after politician follow that same course of action: say they have the right to, but they shouldn’t. Obama came out a few days ago with a strongly worded statement reminding people about that pesky Constitutional protection afforded all religions. Given all his disappointments of late, it was refreshing. But, alas, in typical Obama fashion, there was the pander to the right wing, the very next day – they have the right to, but shouldn’t. The POTUS himself telling people that they shouldn’t exercise their constitutionally protected rights, as though they’re some kind of nuisance or triviality. And this guy’s a constitutional scholar. Beautiful.

Yesterday, it was Harry Reid. Today, Nancy Pelosi gave a similar twisted statement. Now, looking at what we’ve seen so far from the party in power, that kind of capitulation seems to be par for the course. So I’m not surprised. Not pleased, by any means, but not surprised.

Howard Dean, who, in his post-presidential candidate phase has surprisingly often bucked the Dem establishment, jumped on that bandwagon today, too (emphasis mine):

“I’ve gotta believe there has to be a compromise here,” Dean said during a radio interview. “This isn’t about the right of Muslims to have a worship center, or Jews or Christians or anybody else to have a place to worship, or any place around Ground Zero. This is something we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith. And we have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives — including Muslims. That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans and all faiths. So I think a good, reasonable compromise could be worked out, without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.“

It’s an affront to people like Sarah Palin, who can’t tell the difference between the Muslim terrorists and, uh… moderate American Muslims (or the the English language and whatever that gibberish she speaks, for that matter). And Dean fails to see the gross error in his last statement… if they’re caving to public opinion, they’re obviously not “worshiping as they see fit.”

Is the other mosque that’s four blocks from the WTC an affront to those lost their lives? Should we tear that down? What about the titty bars? The porn store?

Dean goes on to basically lay bare and apply the strategy that we’ve seen from most of the national Dems since who knows when:

I think the people who are trying to build the mosque are trying to do something good. But there’s no point in trying to do something good if it’s met with enormous resistance from a lot of folks.

Sound familiar? There’s no point in trying to do something good if it’s met with enormous resistance from a lot of folks. Should be in the party platform at this stage of the game, no? That would have worked out real well for, say, ending slavery, or passing the Civil Rights Act, right?

We’re dangerously straddling the notion of turning into a nation of mob rule, not to mention one where the double standard runs rampant. How would Catholics react if major politicians came out and said that no churches could be built within two blocks of any place children congregate? Or, if Greg Palast aptly noted,

Given that white Christian supremacist Tim McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building, shouldn’t we ban white churches from Oklahoma?

Now, mind you, I’ve never been a Deaniac or anything, but I found myself surprised that one of the few Dem critics of Dem policies and strategies so quickly, and clearly used the exact same strategy that’s going to ensure Republican gains in the fall. I appreciate the honesty, Doc, but standing up for principle would’ve been much nicer.

For your Sunday morning viewing pleasure, another group of pics from one of my urban explorations into Places One is Not Supposed To Go. This one’s from one me and my gal went to in the fall of last year, in New York City. Go below the jump for more…

These photos are from a rather sprawling hospital complex in NYC, one that’s been around a rather long time. There are two abandoned areas of interest, the first being the children’s hospital built in 1937 (seen above) which we explored, and a group of buildings from the turn of the century that were set up as a tuberculosis hospital (see last picture). The 90’s horror flick “Jacob’s Ladder” was filmed in one of the buildings of the TB hospital.

The children’s hospital was abandoned about 20-25 years ago. It’s amazing how quickly things can deteriorate in that amount of time:

The building was set up with six floors with symmetrical wings, as well as a basement that held the kitchen, and a sub-basement with the furnace. It is hard not to be awestruck at how much gets left behind, as though it was done in a hurry:

This was our first venture of this kind. It was tense; ones senses are heightened, as one needs to be on the lookout for the perils of deterioration, as well as the police substation right behind the building. But with this heightened sense comes a greater attention to detail, such as seeing the intricacies of peeling paint:

The TB hospital is on some sort of historical registry, due to the intricate mosaics that ornament the building:

Not believing one whit in the paranormal, it is still hard to be immune to the lasting imprint of the suffering that went on in these places. More than likely, a child died in this crib, seen through the window:

We have some more adventures planned shortly, so I’ll keep you updated as they occur. To see the complete slideshow of this set, in all of its full-sized glory, click here.

Remember Dubya's approach to regulation? More specifically, how he'd appoint former industry insiders to positions in charge of regulating their former industries? Many of us bitched about it, and rightly so.  Time to start bitchin' again:

To shape the government's long-term response to the Gulf oil calamity, President Obama recently formed an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the origins of the leak and BP's efforts to control it.  Yet one of the commission's two co-directors, former EPA chief William K. Reilly, sits on the board of directors of the oil giant ConocoPhillips and the chemical company Dupont, which supplies goods and services to the oil industry.

Now, putting aside the fact that Obama still hasn't gotten rid of a lot of the abysmal Bush appointees, is there something really wrong with this picture?  And it's not the first time he's done this:

Now, Reilly is not the first Obama appointee with direct ties to the oil industry. Indeed, two former BP execs now occupy high posts within, respectively, the Department of Energy and the Minerals Management Service. In March 2009, the president named  BP's chief scientist, Steve Koonin, to the post of undersecretary of science to the Department of Energy. The pick drew little criticism within green circles at the time — perhaps because at BP, Koonin's role was evidently to take the oil giant "beyond petroleum."

Then there's Sylvia V. Baca, whom Obama tapped last summer to serve as deputy administrator for land and minerals management at the now-infamous Minerals Management Service. As Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reported  last week, Baca had spent her previous eight years as a BP exec.

So we have the man in charge of BP's greenwashing campaign in an upper lever position at the DOE, a former BB exec at the MMS,  and now this. A quick peek around left-blogistan reveals nothing but the sound of crickets. This is really getting tiresome, and in light of the oil disaster, downright dangerous. Where’s the accountability?

And undoubtedly, bonus points for a Star Trek uniform (at least for some of us on here):

… or more accurately, considering the sheer incompetence of most of the Washington Dems, here’s another side of what we’re up against, namely, in part, the ones who set the conventional wisdom that has aforementioned Dems and much of the MSM behaving the way that they do.

Daily Kos recently commissioned a poll of Republicans, and although I’m not surprised in the least, some might find rather shocking the depth of the sheer amount of ignorance and regressive thinking that typifies today’s Republicans.

A small sampling illustrates, if anything, how this bipartisan nonsense needs to be jettisoned, as it will only work when you don’t have one party completely living in the Dark Ages. The poll breaks it down into different regions as well as sex and likelihood of voting, but for brevity’s sake, have a look at some of the “all” category.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

NO YES NOT SURE

36   42   22

QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

YES NO NOT SURE

77   15   8

QUESTION: Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

YES NO NOT SURE

31   56   13

QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

YES NO NOT SURE

8     73    19

QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

YES NO NOT SURE

63   21   16

As to that last one, it might have been interesting to see how many Republicans actually know what a “socialist” is, but that would involve a level of thinking that is probably beyond more than a few of ’em.

Not surprisingly, there’s also a lot of opposition to labor and immigration amnesty, as well. To its credit (and my surprise), a majority doesn’t believe Obama should be impeached or that he’s deliberately “wants the terrorists to win”. Now, I’ve never been a fan of Republicanism, even the Eisenhower variety, but it seems there used to be some sort of intellectual component to the party, even if I disagreed with it.

And of course, nothing says more about the current intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party than this question:

QUESTION: Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

YES NO NOT SURE

53   14   33

It’s going to be a long struggle, that much is certain. It’s hard to fight a battle of ideas when your opposition is, for the most part, impervious to facts and reasoning,and the brain trusts of that party have figured out quite well how to take advantage of that virulent anti-intellectualism and channel it into a know-nothing, angry populism. 2010’s gonna be a blast.  

… seems to be to think about a problem (let’s say,people being denied healthcare due to pre-existing conditions – you, know, things like cancer and other things that affect a lot of adults). Then, think of the best possible solution. Then do the exact opposite (from one of the latest health care revisions being tossed around):

Insurers could not deny coverage to children under the age of 19 on account of pre-existing medical conditions.

If you thought the last 15 years were bad, you’re gonna love the next fifteen, lemme tells ya.

Mental health, its funding mechanisms, delivery, methods, and treatments are always a critical component of public health policy. Although I was tempted to use this piece here as a commentary of sorts, it’s really not necessary, although I suppose one  could view these photos as a metaphor for the state of health care in this country. They've made an indelible impression on my psyche, that's for sure.

  Jump below the fold for a glimpse into a forgotten place, one of a rather dismal era in mental health care.

The abandoned Hudson River State Hospital (originally called Hudson River State Hospital for the Insane), which I visited recently, is more or less right on the Hudson, in Poughkeepsie, NY. The 160 acre campus was first built in the late 1800's. The plan was known as a Kirkbride system, an institutional plan developed by Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride:

Once state-of-the-art mental healthcare facilities, Kirkbride buildings have long been relics of an obsolete therapeutic method known as Moral Treatment. In the latter half of the 19th century, these massive structures were conceived as ideal sanctuaries for the mentally ill and as an active participant in their recovery. Careful attention was given to every detail of their design to promote a healthy environment and convey a sense of respectable decorum. Placed in secluded areas within expansive grounds, many of these insane asylums seemed almost palace-like from the outside. But growing populations and insufficient funding led to unfortunate conditions, spoiling their idealistic promise.  

Within decades of their first conception, new treatment methods and hospital design concepts emerged and the Kirkbride plan was eventually discarded. Many existing Kirkbride buildings maintained a central place in the institutions which began within their walls, but by the end of the 20th century most had been completely abandoned or demolished. A few have managed to survive into the 21st century intact and still in use, but many that survive sit abandoned and decaying—their mysterious grandeur intensified by their derelict condition.

The northern part of the campus houses the Kirkbride setup, with this gothic, massive structure as its centerpiece:

Inside the main building, which at one time housed some patients. It became primarily an administrative center, and had labs and quarters in its earlier years:  

The main building was flanked by a male and female ward. In most Kirks, the wards are symmetrical, but at Hudson, the male ward was much bigger, due to both financial considerations and many more male inmates. The wards were more or less empty by the late 70's, and the main building was active until the nineties.

The male ward was completely gutted by fire in 2007. This was taken from the roof of the main building:

The female ward, is still standing. However, it is in an advanced state of decay:  

As we explored these ruins, I cannot even begin to describe the intensity of it all. Aside from the obvious heightened senses due to the darkness and avoiding the obvious structural perils, the mind wanders. You know all those cliched "abandoned mental hospital" stories? This is exactly what they were about. As I looked in the various rooms, such as the one below, I could envision the sadness and torment that was so prevalent in this institution, which once housed over 6,000 patients.

There are also many buildings behind the main one. There were maintenance buildings, staff quarters and residences, a massive power plant and several churches. There was lots of farmland, as well, as it played a critical role in Kirkbride's "Moral Therapy'.  

You can view the entire slideshow of the Kirkbride here.  

South of the Kirkbride is a cluster of more modern buildings, such as the ominous, ten-story Cheney Building (no, it's not named after Dick, but it would've been appropriate). It was built in the mid-50's:  

This was not a nice place. Lacking any of the human touches of the Kirkbride, this was basically a big box filled with lots of little boxes to store people in. It was abandoned in 2000. Good riddance.

It's amazing what happens when a building is left to the elements. Paint peels. Things collapse. Windows break. There are plenty of signs of humanity, just one that is out of order. It almost has a post-apocalyptic feel to it at times. For example, in the women’s ward’s industrial kitchen, there were dozens of massive kettles, food warmers and trays strewn about. Wheelchairs and beds everywhere. Abandoned typewriters and computers, you name it. There were literally thousands of x-rays in this room:  

You can view the complete slideshow of the Cheney Building, as well as the Snow Rehab Center here.  

All in all, aside from an intense mental and physical workout, this visit most certainly gave me something that will stay with me a very long time. If I believed in the paranormal, it would've undoubtedly been thrilling on that level, too. But reality here is creepy enough as it is. It's also an archaeology of sorts, one that reminds us that, even though there is still work to be done, we have come a long way in terms of the treatment of mental illness in this country, not to mention the importance of preserving our historic architecture.  

There are very few Kirkbrides left in the country, and we are losing one or two every year.There are plans for the Kirkbride here to be preserved, but its future is far from certain. For a great site filled with many amazing pics of the different Kirkbrides,as well as lots of historical bckground, have a look at Kirkbride Buildings.  

For more info on HRSH, please visit Historic 51, which has a timeline, history, and a virtual museum, with lots of photos from back in the day.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

In Woodstock, NY, last weekend:

(crossposted at five before chaos)

… have always been, I believe, rooted in capitalism and economic libertarianism. Basically, if anthropogenic global warming proponents are correct (as I believe they are), it basically means that we can’t just “do what we want” regardless of the consequences. One of those right wing definitions of freedom seems to be mind-numbingly simple , i.e. freedom is doing (or buying or destroying, but certainly not having sex with) what you want, regardless of the consequences. It certainly doesn’t take into consideration other people’s freedoms to be free from pollution, dirty water or having the public commons completely corporatized and exploited.

And of course, apologists for this worldview inevitably point to “market based” solutions and the convoluted illogic that regulations are hampering environmental progress, as though if there were no MPG standards, and they could build a car that gets 2 MPG, somehow people will miraculously all start buying hybrids. It’s really as crazy as what the Rapture-Ready™ crowd believes, but it’s more harmful, as it truly affects every single thing on the planet.

This free-market fundamentalism consistently fails to address a rather salient point… how do you fix things, when consumers, given a choice between something environmentally friendly or not, healthy or not, toxic or not, repeatedly choose the detrimental option? Nobody seem to be able to give me a decent answer on that, instead blathering on about “individual choice” and “it’s not my fault if people make bad choices”, or when all else fails, “who are you to decide what’s right?”, as though there are really upsides to lead paint or BPH that are somehow escaping me. If all else fails, some vague reference to the Soviet Union and waiting hours on line for a roll of toilet paper are thrown in for good measure.

More below the jump.

Now, for any of you kooky kons who happen to be reading this, and are thinking, “but global warming is a lie, so it doesn’t matter”, just put aside that premise,  and use that seldom-used part of that brain that uses hypotheticals just to try to make your case. Don’t worry, Jim Inhofe isn’t reading this.

So, anyways, Daniel De Groot over at Open Left has a bit up right now, called Why the Right Denies Anthrpogenic Climate Change, that really struck a nerve with what I’ve believed since day one, that if it is indeed real, that whole worldview comes crumbling to the ground because it simply can’t fix it.  De Groot’s article was prompted by a few others in the blogosphere, kicked off by Digby:

Can someone explain to me why these people hate this climate science so much? I mean, I get that they don’t like gays and think women should stay barefoot and pregnant. I understand that they hate taxes that pay for things that help people they don’t like. Evolution — yeah, that’s obvious.

But global warming? Why? Is it all about their trucks or what? I just don’t get where the passion comes from on this one.

Amanda Marcotte thinks it’s because it pisses liberals off. But Krugman disagrees, having a much more nuanced view, namely that it’s rooted in both the pervasive anti-intellectualism that has permeated the right-wing, coupled with that whole “real men don’t have to change what they’re doing – they just kick ass” mentality that I alluded to above.

It’s really an act of desperation, if you think about it. De Groot:

What’s really happening is that anthropogenic climate change is a fundamental assault on right wing ideology and the solution requires a worldwide implementation of liberal policies that will undercut right wing ideas at every level well into the future. Right wingers maybe do not grasp this fear consciously, but intuitively everything about this issue stinks for them. Denial is the only way to save their worldview.

It’s not so much a conservative/libertarian worldview, it’s really one of unrestricted hypercapitalism, specifically one that intends to maximize every last profit that can be squeezed out of our 19th century petro-based energy system. It's why, when one looks at the most prominent “studies” cited by global warming denialists,  it's no surprise that they are often funded by the petrochemical industry and “free-market” organizations. And with that, the kinds of “liberal” changes that would need to come about would have a chilling effect on the hypercapitalist worldview, which De Groot gives a knockout punch to in his closing paragraph:

The solution to the climate crisis requires increased world governance (though not a “world government” proper). Voluntary action by individuals is not nearly enough, and even individual nations taking internally collective action will fail. Taxes on carbon, or a government imposed “cap”, or regulation on industry is needed. Lots of major international coordination to curtail freeloading and even wealth transfers from rich to poor so that poor countries can curtail emissions too. Sure, cap and trade takes advantage of markets, but overall, the solutions are by and large liberal ones, that would leave the world a fundamentally unconservative place. There will be spillover into other topics, trade, labour standards, economic justice. Once governments around the world agree to coordinate regulation of carbon, they will find it easier to coordinate regulation of other things. The infrastructure will be there. It’s easier to add a few staff and enlarge the mandate of a particular bureaucracy than to build it from scratch.

One way or another, climate change is the demise of the right wing economic worldview. The only question is whether liberalism “wins” (by solving the problem) or gets dragged into calamity by the deniers blocking needed action.

That’s why they fight this so hard. It proves everything they believe is wrong.

Indeed.