Our Climate Future

I am fortunate enough to have a more or less monthly column in my local newspaper, the Morgan Hill Times. In a Green Talk submitted for publication on Nov. 30, I explain why I see the future of climate action to be at the local level, since Tea Party backed Republicans are pledged to ignore reality in favor of a near religious zeal to destroy all environmental controls that impinge on either personal or corporate freedom to screw the rest of us. Click Read more! for full column. In my previous column, I asked our three mayoral candidates to answer a few questions regarding their attitudes about climate change. On the basis of those answers, I came to the conclusion that only one, Steve Tate, was perceptive enough to deserve my vote. Even if your reasons were not the same as mine, thankfully enough of you agreed on that choice to re-elect Mayor Tate.

Yet, this goes against the prevailing voter response for most of America. In state after state, voters have elected champions of small government, free enterprise, reduced taxes and no regulation of business, backed by a loose coalition of organizations known collectively as the Tea Party. Almost universally, they echo the refrain that climate change is a hoax, isn't happening or could not possibly be caused by human activity. After all, we are too intelligent to do something like that... or are we?

Maybe the most extreme is Illinois Representative John Shimkus. His position is one of Biblical faith holding fast to the promise of Exodus where God told Noah that he would not destroy the earth again. The Bible says nothing about God preventing man from doing the job himself.

I would not be concerned about the Rep. Shimkus were it not for the fact that he could become the next Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. If he gains that position, he will the ability to shape energy policies for all of us, determining which bills will come up for a vote and on what schedule. In that position, he would be dangerous.

It would seem that all of the Tea Party is following the scientific thinking of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, a trio of media personalities who will say anything to make sure that Obama will be a one term president. It has come to the point where Limbaugh has aimed his rant at Motor Trend Magazine for daring to name the Chevrolet Volt as their Car of the Year. Any deviation from the orthodoxy of revealed truth can not be tolerated.

If the Volt can be named car of the year, then you might have to agree with at least some of what the Obama administration is attempting to do and that can not be allowed. Motor Trend has even responded with the reminder that “driving and Oxycontin don’t mix.”

It does not take much effort to understand that the great hoax is really being perpetrated by those often labeled as climate deniers. Even when they do find errors in any of the science, the correction of those errors has only served to strengthen that case for climate change. When they proudly proclaim that the Arctic Sea Ice is expanding again, they fail to note that it is also thinning, having less “old ice” or volume than ever before. When emails between scientists were hacked and then leaked last year, the further investigation has shown that it was all much ado about little; that the claims of the deniers that the were proof of some perfidy were as bogus the various lists of names of scientists who supposedly oppose the idea that human activity is changing the climate. (Many of the names on that list were already dead before the list was first published, almost all of the others had never given their permission for that use of their names. Yet still, Sen. Inhofe has continued to publish it at government expense.

While Inhofe, Shimkus and their minions are all set to determine climate policy for this country, the Chinese have a different goal. They are investing heavily in Green Energy, even to produce the same forms of electric cars that Limbaugh feels in Un-American and the first step to something that he calls Socialism.

Which brings me back to the rational for why I made it into a local election issue. If the leadership of the Republican Party, especially those with Tea Party backing, have decided that rationality has no place in national policy decisions, then the future depends on what we do here, in California, in Morgan Hill. Make of it what you will.

Leeland Yee versus Sarah Palin?

I find it interesting that State Senator Leeland Yee is busy making headlines in his criticisms of the Stanislaus Foundation for refusing to disclose the speaker fees for Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin has been scheduled for a fundraiser at Cal State University- Stanislaus. Needless to say many have jumped on Leeland’s bandwagon because it involves Sarah Palin.

In the interest of public disclosure, I should preface this article with the links to a three part article that I posted during the 2008 Presidential campaign about Sarah Palin and Alaska Natives. They can be found on GreenPartyWatch.org Part one is here. Part two is here. And part three is here. The purpose of the article was to demonstrate that Sarah Palin was clearly in over her head in addressing the numerous issues impacting Alaskan Natives in her role as Governor. It is worth noting that I even stated in the article: “Governor Palin has NOT shown herself up to the task of Governor and has failed to focus on defending Alaska’s natural resources, preserving its unique environment or protecting and enhancing the democratic rights of Native Alaskans. Most of the problems have NOT been of her making, but neither has she demonstrated the ability to ‘think outside the box’ of the powerful economic interests seeking to come into the state for their own short-term profits.”

From this point on, I want to take issue with the kind of politics that seeks to garner headlines while disregarding the consequences of actions by the state government. Let me begin by saying that the Stanislaus Foundation has very specific obligations under the California Public Records Act. The Act can be found in its entirety. It should be noted that legal action is stipulated for both the public and the District Attorneys. Section 6263 states:”A state or local agency shall allow an inspection or copying of any public record or class of public records not exempted by this chapter when requested by a district attorney.” This is the nuclear option of the California Public Records Law. It provides the ultimate mechanism for ending ceaseless back-and-forth public disputes of what is and what is not open to disclosure. Senator Yee currently has a proposal on the table to include public foundations in the public records law.

Not being an attorney, I am neither qualified nor intend to propose a legal opinion in regards to the current applicability of the California Public Records Law to the matter in question. As to the purpose of fundraising for CSU-Stanislaus, it has been noted in a Fresno Bee article that ”The foundation's 2008 tax return shows it raised $4.1 million and distributed close to $3 million in scholarships and assistance to the school.”

As to the politics of the issue, there is no question that State Senator Yee has been actively engaged in the past on issues in regards to state universities and city colleges in regards to disclosure practices. The current issues are being wrapped around the personality of Sarah Palin. It is worth asking the question as to whether the case that is being made can be handled under existing law or if State Senator Yee’s visibility is directed towards amending the California Public Records Law. In either event, the issue of Sarah Palin being the speaker should be taken out of the discussion.

State Senator Yee has chosen to make the speaker the issue. On his Facebook page he has chosen to raise the cancellation of a proposed FOX NEWS interview with him to substantiate his case. Fortunately for Americans, FOX NEWS editorial decisions have no bearing on the enforcement of California state law.

The Stanislaus Foundation has not disclosed the speaker’s fee because of a non-disclosure clause in her contract. The case for open disclosure is obvious to all and is important in maintaining the accountability of public institutions. Can a case be made for fundraisers who have agreed with speakers not to reveal the speakers’ fees? It should be said that Sarah Palin is not the only speaker to require a non-disclosure fee in the contracts made for appearances.

It is worth discussing before changes are made whether we want to restrict the options for fundraising at a time when state budgets have been cut. Non-disclosure clauses are not new and reflect the desire of the speakers to define the conditions for their appearance. The Stanislaus Foundation was free at the time of negotiating the contract to reject Sarah Palin’s non-disclosure clause. If their agreement to inclusion of the non-disclosure clause was a violation of the California Public Records Law, then it is clearly a matter for a District Attorney. It is entirely possible that the Foundation’s legal review of the contract might have missed something required under the Public Records Law. For this there are procedures included in the Public Records Law.

State Senator Yee is more familiar with the law then I am. I grant his expertise on the Law as he has actively sought to expand its applicability as cases were brought to light in the state higher education system. I do not challenge his personal motives in this regard. I am wary of efforts that are pinpointed towards “unpopular” opinions as they are seen here in San Francisco. I am concerned about the impact of increased disclosures on the ability to raise funds for higher education. I do not cling to it as something that cannot be amended as needed. I simply want fundraisers to be provided with options to raise funds for the schools so they can benefit present and future students. It is clear that the Governor and the California State Legislature have not lived up to their obligations to fully fund state higher educational institutions.

This goes well beyond the message that Sarah Palin could conceivably present at her speaking engagement. It goes well beyond my own political disagreements with Sarah Palin. It goes well beyond the particulars of FOX NEWS coverage. When it comes to open disclosure, I support increasing it as possible and relevant to the oversight of public records. There is no argument that there are plenty of people in the Stanislaus area who would pay $500/head to see her. I’m not one of those. But, I am not at all threatened by the views of Sarah Palin or the movement among middle class Americans known as the Tea Party. These folks include family members of mine who have no sublimated racist or fascist tendencies. I have always had disagreements with my family since the Vietnam War. I don’t expect that to change now. But I have never seen them aggressively act to deprive others of their Constitutional or legal rights.

Respect for diversity of views has always been important in this state and throughout the U.S. The Green Party has been subjected to many efforts initiated by Democratic Parties in states to restrict our ballot access. We know that they have been no less inclined then the Republican Party to play the game that restricts political representation by marginalizing third parties. The Tea Party movement will find this out for itself and Sarah Palin will be the main proponent of staying within the Republican Party. My word of advice to them is to realize what Libertarians and Greens learned a long time ago: there are no friends in the duopoly Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to forming parties that represent a distinct political agenda removed from their control.

Mystic Lake Declaration on Climate Change

I have MI Green Linda Cree to thank for getting this to me. I was not aware of it until just tonight, when she posted it to an email list that targets rural Greens. I wish that I had seen it earlier.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on what climate change means for this world. Sarah Palin thinks climate change is "snake oil science." Well, the authors of the this declaration are not buying any of her anti-science snake oil.

Thanks, Linda. Readers, I hope you remember that the first two communities to be effected by climate change (Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana and Newtok, Alaska) are both communities of indigenous people. They are the first to feel the weight of our consumptive life style. They will not be the last.

Click Read more! for the full text.


From the Native Peoples Native Homelands Climate Change Workshop II:
Indigenous Perspectives and Solutions

At Mystic Lake on the Homelands of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Prior Lake, Minnesota

November 21, 2009

As community members, youth and elders, spiritual and traditional leaders, Native organizations and supporters of our Indigenous Nations, we have gathered on November 18-21, 2009 at Mystic Lake in the traditional homelands of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota Oyate. This Second Native Peoples Native Homelands Climate Workshop builds upon the Albuquerque Declaration and work done at the 1998 Native Peoples Native Homelands Climate Change Workshop held in Albuquerque, New Mexico. We choose to work together to fulfill our sacred duties, listening to the teachings of our elders and the voices of our youth, to act wisely to carry out our responsibilities to enhance the health and respect the sacredness of Mother Earth, and to demand Climate Justice now.

We acknowledge that to deal effectively with global climate change and global warming issues all sovereigns must work together to adapt and take action on real solutions that will ensure our collective existence. We hereby declare, affirm, and assert our inalienable rights as well as responsibilities as members of sovereign Native Nations. In doing so, we expect to be active participants with full representation in United States and international legally binding treaty agreements regarding climate, energy, biodiversity, food sovereignty, water and sustainable development policies affecting our peoples and our respective Homelands on Turtle Island (North America) and Pacific Islands.

We are of the Earth. The Earth is the source of life to be protected, not merely a resource to be exploited. Our ancestors' remains lie within her. Water is her lifeblood. We are dependent upon her for our shelter and our sustenance. Our lifeways are the original "green economies." We have our place and our responsibilities within Creation's sacred order. We feel the sustaining joy as things occur in harmony. We feel the pain of disharmony when we witness the dishonor of the natural order of Creation and the degradation of Mother Earth and her companion Moon.

We need to stop the disturbance of the sacred sites on Mother Earth so that she may heal and restore the balance in Creation. We ask the world community to join with the Indigenous Peoples to pray on summer solstice for the healing of all the sacred sites on Mother Earth.

The well-being of the natural environment predicts the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual longevity of our Peoples and the Circle of Life. Mother Earth's health and that of our Indigenous Peoples are intrinsically intertwined. Unless our homelands are in a state of good health our Peoples will not be truly healthy. This inseparable relationship must be respected for the sake of our future generations. In this Declaration, we invite humanity to join with us to improve our collective human behavior so that we may develop a more sustainable world – a world where the inextricable relationship of biological, and environmental diversity, and cultural diversity is affirmed and protected.

We have the power and responsibility to change. We can preserve, protect, and fulfill our sacred duties to live with respect in this wonderful Creation. However, we can also forget our responsibilities, disrespect Creation, cause disharmony and imperil our future and the future of others.

At Mystic Lake, we reviewed the reports of indigenous science, traditional knowledge and cultural scholarship in cooperation with non-native scientists and scholars. We shared our fears, concerns and insights. If current trends continue, native trees will no longer find habitable locations in our forests, fish will no longer find their streams livable, and humanity will find their homelands flooded or drought-stricken due to the changing weather. Our Native Nations have already disproportionately suffered the negative compounding effects of global warming and a changing climate.

The United States and other industrialized countries have an addiction to the high consumption of energy. Mother Earth and her natural resources cannot sustain the consumption and production needs of this modern industrialized society and its dominant economic paradigm, which places value on the rapid economic growth, the quest for corporate and individual accumulation of wealth, and a race to exploit natural resources. The non-regenerative production system creates too much waste and toxic pollutions. We recognize the need for the United States and other industrialized countries to focus on new economies, governed by the absolute limits and boundaries of ecological sustainability, the carrying capacities of the Mother Earth, a more equitable sharing of global and local resources, encouragement and support of self sustaining communities, and respect and support for the rights of Mother Earth and her companion Moon.

In recognizing the root causes of climate change, participants call upon the industrialized countries and the world to work towards decreasing dependency on fossil fuels. We call for a moratorium on all new exploration for oil, gas, coal and uranium as a first step towards the full phase-out of fossil fuels, without nuclear power, with a just transition to sustainable jobs, energy and environment. We take this position and make this recommendation based on our concern over the disproportionate social, cultural, spiritual, environmental and climate impacts on Indigenous Peoples, who are the first and the worst affected by the disruption of intact habitats, and the least responsible for such impacts.

Indigenous peoples must call for the most stringent and binding emission reduction targets. Carbon emissions for developed countries must be reduced by no less than 40%, preferably 49% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 95% by 2050. We call for national and global actions to stabilize CO2 concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm) and limiting temperature increases to below 1.5ºc.

We challenge climate mitigation solutions to abandon false solutions to climate change that negatively impact Indigenous Peoples' rights, lands, air, oceans, forests, territories and waters. These include nuclear energy, large-scale dams, geo-engineering techniques, clean coal technologies, carbon capture and sequestration, bio-fuels, tree plantations, and international market-based mechanisms such as carbon trading and offsets, the Clean Development Mechanisms and Flexible Mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol and forest offsets. The only real offsets are those renewable energy developments that actually displace fossil fuel-generated energy. We recommend the United States sign on to the Kyoto Protocol and to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are concerned with how international carbon markets set up a framework for dealing with greenhouse gases that secure the property rights of heavy Northern fossil fuel users over the world's carbon-absorbing capacity while creating new opportunities for corporate profit through trade. The system starts by translating existing pollution into a tradable commodity, the rights to which are allocated in accordance with a limit set by States or intergovernmental agencies. In establishing property rights over the world's carbon dump, the largest number of rights is granted (mostly for free) to those who have been most responsible for pollution in the first place. At UN COP15, the conservation of forests is being brought into a property right issue concerning trees and carbon. With some indigenous communities it is difficult and sometimes impossible to reconcile with traditional spiritual beliefs the participation in climate mitigation that commodifies the sacredness of air (carbon), trees and life. Climate change mitigation and sustainable forest management must be based on different mindsets with full respect for nature, and not solely on market-based mechanisms.

We recognize the link between climate change and food security that affects Indigenous traditional food systems. We declare our Native Nations and our communities, waters, air, forests, oceans, sea ice, traditional lands and territories to be "Food Sovereignty Areas," defined and directed by Indigenous Peoples according to our customary laws, free from extractive industries, unsustainable energy development, deforestation, and free from using food crops and agricultural lands for large scale bio-fuels.

We encourage our communities to exchange information related to the sustainable and regenerative use of land, water, sea ice, traditional agriculture, forest management, ancestral seeds, food plants, animals and medicines that are essential in developing climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, and will restore our food sovereignty, food independence, and strengthen our Indigenous families and Native Nations.

We reject the assertion of intellectual property rights over the genetic resources and traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples which results in the alienation and commodification of those things that are sacred and essential to our lives and cultures. We reject industrial modes of food production that promote the use of chemical substances, genetically engineered seeds and organisms. Therefore, we affirm our right to possess, control, protect and pass on the indigenous seeds, medicinal plants, traditional knowledge originating from our lands and territories for the benefit of our future generations.

We can make changes in our lives and actions as individuals and as Nations that will lessen our contribution to the problems. In order for reality to shift, in order for solutions to major problems to be found and realized, we must transition away from the patterns of an industrialized mindset, thought and behavior that created those problems. It is time to exercise desperately needed Indigenous ingenuity – Indigenuity – inspired by our ancient intergenerational knowledge and wisdom given to us by our natural relatives.

We recognize and support the position of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC), operating as the Indigenous Caucus within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), that is requesting language within the overarching principles of the outcomes of the Copenhagen UNFCCC 15th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) and beyond Copenhagen, that would ensure respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples, including their rights to lands, territories, forests and resources to ensure their full and effective participation including free, prior and informed consent. It is crucial that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is entered into all appropriate negotiating texts for it is recognized as the minimum international standard for the protection of rights, survival, protection and well-being of Indigenous Peoples, particularly with regard to health, subsistence, sustainable housing and infrastructure, and clean energy development.

As Native Nations and Indigenous Peoples living within the occupied territories of the United States, we acknowledge with concern, the refusal of the United States to support negotiating text that would recognize applicable universal human rights instruments and agreements, including the UNDRIP, and further safeguard principles that would ensure their full and effective participation including free, prior and informed consent. We will do everything humanly possible by exercising our sovereign government-to-government relationship with the U.S. to seek justice on this issue.

Our Indian languages are encoded with accumulated ecological knowledge and wisdom that extends back through oral history to the beginning of time. Our ancestors created land and water relationship systems premised upon the understanding that all life forms are relatives – not resources. We understand that we as human beings have a sacred and ceremonial responsibility to care for and maintain, through our original instructions, the health and well-being of all life within our traditional territories and Native Homelands.

We will encourage our leadership and assume our role in supporting a just transition into a green economy, freeing ourselves from dependence on a carbon-based fossil fuel economy. This transition will be based upon development of an indigenous agricultural economy comprised of traditional food systems, sustainable buildings and infrastructure, clean energy and energy efficiency, and natural resource management systems based upon indigenous science and traditional knowledge. We are committed to development of economic systems that enable life-enhancement as a core component. We thus dedicate ourselves to the restoration of true wealth for all Peoples. In keeping with our traditional knowledge, this wealth is based not on monetary riches but rather on healthy relationships, relationships with each other, and relationships with all of the other natural elements and beings of creation.

In order to provide leadership in the development of green economies of life-enhancement, we must end the chronic underfunding of our Native educational institutions and ensure adequate funding sources are maintained. We recognize the important role of our Native K-12 schools and tribal colleges and universities that serve as education and training centers that can influence and nurture a much needed Indigenuity towards understanding climate change, nurturing clean renewable energy technologies, seeking solutions and building sustainable communities.

The world needs to understand that the Earth is a living female organism – our Mother and our Grandmother. We are kin. As such, she needs to be loved and protected. We need to give back what we take from her in respectful mutuality. We need to walk gently. These Original Instructions are the natural spiritual laws, which are supreme. Science can urgently work with traditional knowledge keepers to restore the health and well-being of our Mother and Grandmother Earth.

As we conclude this meeting we, the participating spiritual and traditional leaders, members and supporters of our Indigenous Nations, declare our intention to continue to fulfill our sacred responsibilities, to redouble our efforts to enable sustainable life-enhancing economies, to walk gently on our Mother Earth, and to demand that we be a part of the decision-making and negotiations that impact our inherent and treaty-defined rights. Achievement of this vision for the future, guided by our traditional knowledge and teachings, will benefit all Peoples on the Earth.

Approved by Acclamation and Individual Sign-ons.

Sarah Palin- Before the Election

A recent web article is worthy of some review and discussion in regards to Governor Palin’s “Record on Alaska Native and Tribal Issues”. It is good when substantive policy issues are referenced in the discussion of Palin. A lot of people are unaware of the importance of indigenous issues in Alaska. In the 2000 Census, 15.6% of the Alaska population listed themselves as Alaskan native or American Indian. “While over 40% of the residents live in the largest city of Anchorage, most of the rest of the state is sparsely populated or uninhabited with communities separated by vast distances. 52.3% of the state population lives in frontier areas.” This makes for a significant percentage of the population in rural regions. There are also well-established tribal governments in Alaska. “There are 562 tribal governments in the United States with 225 of them located in Alaska,” explains Paul G. Moorhead, a Federal Indian law and policy attorney with the Indian Tribal Governments Practice Group at Gardner, Carton & Douglas in Washington, D.C.”

The most significant act in recent history that impacted indigenous and Native Alaskan peoples was “in 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was signed into law by the U.S. President, under which the Natives relinquished aboriginal claims to their lands.[2] In return, they received access to 44 million acres (180,000 km²) of land and were paid $963 million. The land and money were divided among regional, urban, and village corporations.”

Criticism from a former Chief of the Neetsaii Gwich’in tribe from Arctic Village, Alaska and the current Executive Director of Native Movement points out: “The same piece of unilateral federal legislation, known as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971, that extinguished our hunting and fishing rights, also extinguished all federal Alaska Native land claims and my Tribe’s reservation status. In the continental United States, this sort of legislation is referred to as ‘termination legislation’ because it takes the rights of self-government away from Tribes.”

In the article the former Chief stated: “Governor Palin maintains that tribes were federally recognized but that they do not have the same rights as the tribes in the continental United States to sovereignty and self-governance, even to the extent of legally challenging our Tribes rights pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act.” Given the Federal interface required for indigenous claims it should be said that the state’s role in determining policies is strictly defined by litigation and federal statute. Much of the jurisdiction over subsistence hunting and fishing rights within Alaska has been federalized. “The secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are legally bound to manage fish and wildlife for the rural subsistence priority on federal land and water because the State of Alaska is not able to do so under the provisions of the [Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act] ANILCA.” This is the substance of the court decision of May 2007 referred to in the article SARAH PALIN’S RECORD ON ALASKA NATIVE AND TRIBAL ISSUES .

A more comprehensive examination of the subsistence policy is available. This history indicates that the ongoing dispute is one in which a resolution has not yet been found in the courts or in the state legislature. As a result of the Katie John case a declaration was issued that ". . . subsistence is integral to the lives and essential to the survival of Alaska Native peoples and communities. The subsistence way of life for Alaska Natives and rural Alaskans is a unique and important Alaska value that must be protected by our state government. The Legislature shall adopt a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a rural subsistence priority for use of Alaska's fish and game resources." There has been no such adoption of a state Constitutional amendment to date.

This keeps the issue alive in state and Federal courts. Gov. Palin has NOT sought to pass a state Constitutional amendment that would address the matter of rural subsistence rights and is working in opposition to the efforts of most Alaskans to resolve it in this way. She stands isolated in this regard. “Prior to 2002, three governors, the Alaska congressional delegation, and a majority of State legislators supported a state constitutional amendment to resolve the conflict. “Although a majority of Alaskan citizens also appeared to support amending the constitution to allow for a rural priority for subsistence, this amendment was not able to achieve the required two-thirds majority in both houses of the state legislature and was not passed. No legislative or judicial solution is expected in the foreseeable future that would allow the State of Alaska to comply with ANILCA provisions and to manage subsistence hunting and fishing on federal public lands and waters.”

Even the majority of the court in the Katie John case declared: “If we were to adopt Katie John's position, that public lands include all navigable waters, we would give federal agencies control over all such waters in Alaska. ANILCA does not support such a complete assertion of federal control and the federal agencies do not ask to have that control. The issue raised by the parties cries out for a legislative, not a judicial, solution. If the Alaska Legislature were to amend the state constitution or otherwise comply with ANILCA's rural subsistence priority, the state could resume management of subsistence uses on public lands including navigable waters. Neither the heavy administrative burden nor the complicated regulatory scheme that may result from our decision would be necessary. If Congress were to amend ANILCA, it could clarify both the definition of public lands and its intent. Only legislative action by Alaska or Congress will truly resolve the problem.”

In fact, a website, addressing candidate policy positions, quotes specifically indicates Governor Palin’s opposition to just such a Constitutional amendment. This makes her MORE than just an observer on this matter. “Palin opposes a constitutional amendment, saying equality provisions should not be tampered with. She says the state should work toward another resolution that protects subsistence for those who need it most.” Alaskan Republicans have consistently opposed an amendment. Opposition to a state Constitutional amendment is also the position taken by the Alaskan Independence Party that sought to negate aboriginal rights in Alaska at its 2000 state convention in Wasilla, Governor Palin’s hometown.

In 2008, Governor Palin sent an official video welcome to the state convention of the Alaskan Independence Party. The article SARAH PALIN’S RECORD ON ALASKA NATIVE AND TRIBAL ISSUES presents the case that only Governor Palin stands between subsistence rights and indigenous peoples. “Palin continues to argue in the litigation that the federal subsistence protections are too broad, and should be narrowed to exclude vast areas from subsistence fishing”.

The fact is that there is a general recognition that the Federal jurisdiction in Alaska greatly exceeds its reach. In addition to the view of the Court of Appeals expressed above in the majority opinion, the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals in the Katie John case indicated a concern regarding the Federal authority in Alaska: “I do not think it is for us to decide, on the basis of these two factors, that Congress intended "interest" to be defined so broadly so as to bring all of Alaska's navigable waters under ANILCA. Such a drastic change in the amount of control exercised by the federal government over all navigable waters in Alaska can only come from Congress.” Judge Hall dissenting.

Governor Palin supports oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). “Caribou from the Porcupine Herd, for which the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge is critically-important habitat, is the key subsistence food resource for the Gwich’in Nation. There are about nine thousand Gwich’in people who live in fifteen small villages along the migration route of the Porcupine Caribou Herd in Northern Alaska and Canada… Since the beginnings of the political battle over the biological heart of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Gwich’in people have spoke in a unified voice in opposition to drilling on the Coastal Plain.”

“ANWR is 19.5 million acre refuge in the northeastern Alaska. Within those borders, there is a 1.5 million acre section called “1002.” …It is the lands within the 1002 area that would be opened for exploration and drilling. The Native-owned Arctic Slope Regional Corporation owns 92,000 acres of subsurface land and the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, also Native-owned, owns 92,000 surface acres of land within the 1002 area.” Many Inupiat people, perhaps a majority, who live in this region support oil drilling. Their view is expressed by former Mayor Benjamin P. Nageak: “ANWR holds resources that can be extracted safely with care and concern for the entire eco-system it encompasses. The Inupiat people, working through the North Slope Borough, will act in the same careful, caring and cautious manner we always have when dealing with our lands and the seas.”

“The Inupiat from Point Hope, Alaska recently passed resolutions recognizing that drilling in ANWR would allow resource exploitation in other wilderness areas. The Inupiat, Gwitch'in, and other tribes are calling for sustainable energy practices and policies. The Tanana Chiefs Conference representing 42 Alaska Native villages from 37 tribes oppose drilling, as do at least 90 Native American tribes. The National Congress of American Indians representing 250 tribes and the Native American Rights Fund as well as some Canadian tribes and International Tribal Organiza-tions also oppose drilling in the 1002 area.”

In reviewing the feedback of Native Americans on the nomination of Sarah Palin, there has been a diversity of views expressed. INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY reported differing opinions regarding Gov. Palin’s policies and actions as Governor. The article contains various statements by Gov. Palin and various people in the state of Alaska reviewing her positions. The article states: “Despite strong Indian support at the convention, Palin has drawn concern from some Alaska Natives, especially on issues surrounding an initiative to stop development of the Pebble Mine adjacent to the Bristol Bay fishing grounds, which is a prime area for both commercial and subsistence salmon fishing.”

“Pebble Mine is not just a mine. It is to be the world’s largest open pit mine, situated immediately up-gradient of this renowned, salmon fishery that bolsters a $300 million economy on its renewable resource, and has been the livelihood and lifeblood of thousands of native Alaskans for centuries, and still is today.” “Northern Dynasty and its partners [mining giants Rio Tinto and Anglo American based in London- MZ] are continuing with efforts to assess the size of the deposits of copper, gold, and molybdenum. “The proposed Pebble Mine, which would be the first of many, would include the largest dam in the world, larger than Three Gorges Dam in China, and made of earth not concrete, to hold back the toxic waste created in the mining process.” Opposition has come from the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council.

“[Supporters of the mine- MZ] have been greatly helped by Gov. Sarah Palin — the Republican candidate for vice president — who, despite a constitutional ban [I have not found anything in reading through Alaska’s state constitution to confirm this- MZ] on state officials becoming involved in ballot initiatives, publicly expressed her “personal” opposition to the measure. Many say the popular governor’s stance was decisive. Before her comments, polls suggested that citizens supported the referendum. Afterward — and following the use of her picture in advertisements opposing the tough mining initiative — the measure was voted down on Aug. 26, with 57 percent against and 43 percent in favor.” See http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8885438

Recently forces opposed to the Pebble Mine responded to the NO vote in the state referendum. In an Opinion piece by Verner Wilson in the Bristol Bay Times, Governor Palin and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (Department of Natural Resources) were criticized for their role in defeating Ballot Measure 4, the Clean Water Initiative. “Before meddling in our livelihoods again with their powerful and inappropriate remarks, I hope Palin and DNR heed the facts that show the very poor and disturbing environmental compliance records and relationships that Anglo- American and Rio Tinto have or have had with indigenous peoples in the United States and around the world with many of their mines. I also urge Alaska leaders and anyone who voted “no” on Ballot Measure 4 to read a scientific article that shows Alaska does not have the capacity and proper regulations to protect drinking water and wild salmon from a large mine like Pebble, found at http://www.fish4thefuture.com/pdfs/ALR25P1.pdf .” Local opposition in the Bristol Bay mine region ranges from 70-80%.

On another issue impacting resource management, in February Governor Palin issued an Executive Order to transfer biologists from the Department of Natural Resources to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Some of Pebble project's biggest opponents in the Bristol Bay region recently began collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to force the state to return the biologists to Fish and Game -- an initiative that now may be moot. One of its sponsors, Bobby Andrew of Dillingham, said he is grateful to Palin for her decision but he will wait to see her executive order before deciding how to proceed.”

This step by Governor Palin stands on the record as an action by the Executive of the state that was supportive of concerns for ecological preservation. “Five years ago, [then Governor- MZ] Murkowski ordered the transfer of the habitat biologists to DNR -- which issues development permits -- claiming they had thrown up too many barriers to industrial projects such as logging and dam-building. Murkowski's decision prompted an outcry from five former Fish and Game commissioners, Democratic legislators and environmental groups, who said putting the biologists in the state's development agency violated the balance between resource protection and development.” There is no question of Governor Palin’s familial ties and her personal lifestyle. An article in INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY addresses Governor Palin’s personal views as the wife of a man who is mixed blood Yup’ik. “Palin has talked positively of her husband and children's heritage in the past. When running for governor in October 2006, she wrote a letter addressed to rural voters, saying she ''so very much appreciates Alaska's First People, their proud heritage and diverse cultures so abundant in the communities throughout our state.'' The article continues: ''I personally feel the language, stories, and traditions of Alaska Native cultures are a national treasure to be nourished and held close to our hearts,'' Palin added. ''It is our rural lifestyle and diverse cultural heritage that distinguishes Alaska from the rest of the world and makes it our wonderful home.''

The article SARAH PALIN’S RECORD ON ALASKA NATIVE AND TRIBAL ISSUES inquires as to the propriety of Governor Palin appointing an outside counsel for “Once in office, Governor Palin decided to continue litigation that seeks to overturn every subsistence fishing determination the federal government has ever made in Alaska. (State of Alaska v. Norton, 3:05-cv-0158-HRH (D. Ak).) In pressing this case, Palin decided against using the Attorney General (which usually handles State litigation) and instead continued contracting with Senator Ted Stevens' brother-in-law's law firm (Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot).” It is difficult to point to the role of the Governor in NOT assigning a case to the state Attorney General as evidence of corruption by itself, as alleged in , unless the case is made before a court. It is worth asking why this decision was made and why it was felt inappropriate for the State Attorney General to litigate the case. The case referenced in the article above in the article SARAH PALIN’S RECORD ON ALASKA NATIVE AND TRIBAL ISSUES regarding the use of the Yu’pik language on ballots was decided in a court case in which it was decided: “A Federal Judge has ruled that Yup’ik is not an historically written language. The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought on by Yup’ik elders and tribes against the State of Alaska and the City of Bethel. The ruling by Judge Timothy Burgess did limit the kind of language assistance the state is required to provide.” The ruling did establish means for poll workers to increase ballot access for Native Yu’pik speakers.

An article in an Alaskan newspaper reported: “A federal judge in the suit ruled plaintiffs would suffer immediate and irreparable injury,” if not provided assistance to fulfill their right to vote in primary elections. He ordered the state on July 29 to remedy the situation in time for the primaries. The requirements included the placement of Yup’ik-English bilingual poll workers in every polling place with a significant number of Yup’ik voters – large portions of Western Alaska which are historically Yup’ik lands – and a standardized written Yup’ik translation of the ballots for poll workers to read aloud.

In testimony before the court, the state counsel for Alaska in July 2008 argued “the state of Alaska recently hired a Yup’ik translator to coordinate statewide assistance to Yup’ik speaking voters and that it now plans to provide a translator in all 38 voting precincts in the Bethel census area in time for the primary and general elections.”

The Bethel lawsuit was filed by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) on behalf of four traditional elders and four tribal councils representing 1,000 people. The area affected was characterized by a NARF attorney, who represented the plaintiffs, as being one of only three census areas in the US which is not a majority English or Spanish-speaking area. Sixty-eight percent of the population speaks Yu’pik at home. There is an illiteracy rate of 21% and 89% of those over 55 have no high school diploma. The decision could also impact on Inupiaq speaking peoples in the Arctic Circle of Alaska. The report summarizing the state’s steps to provide support for Yu’pik speakers at the polling places for the primary election will be submitted to the court on September 26.

Some of the matters raised are still undetermined because of the failures of previous state legislatures and Governors in Alaska, as well as Governor Palin’s positions. Nothing in her record indicates that she will support indigenous subsistence rights in Alaska. The subsistence issues that remain unresolved present her with the opportunity to act decisively and affirmatively for Alaska’s future. The dependence of many in Alaska on hunting and fishing for subsistence and food supplies for the year are distinct characteristics of 60% of the state’s population that are NOT familiar to many in the lower 48. There appears to be a particular disregard by Governor Palin on defending the particular subsistence rights of indigenous peoples in Alaska that are protected under Federal law.

There are clearly constitutional and legal issues in Alaska that have yet to be addressed to the satisfaction of Native Alaskans and tribal peoples of Alaska. Clearly, Governor Palin has opposed any action that supports a state Constitutional amendment on rural and subsistence hunting. The state of Alaska will present a report to the U.S. District Court regarding the implementation of the court’s decision requiring assistance to Yu’pik speaking voters in the primary election. Governor Palin not only supports oil drilling in ANWR to increase the economic growth of Alaska, but looks to changing Senator McCain’s views on it as well. Governor Palin is on record denying that global warming is human caused. As global warming increasingly impacts on the Arctic icepack and the survival of polar bears, Governor Palin has opposed including the polar bear on the list of endangered species.

In elections, everyone makes choices regarding what’s important to them. Candidates are often chosen by their actions in one particular area, while other shortcomings are disregarded. There are NO issues in which there are NOT disagreements within communities, ethnic groups, states and nations. Some decide it is sufficient to vote for a candidate if a person is supportive of Second Amendment rights. Many prioritize land use and management issues in their decision. Others see ecological preservation as a significant consideration. And still others see tribal sovereignty as the singular issue. Governor Palin has taken action that has NOT furthered the rights of subsistence hunters or Native Alaskans. She has taken actions that could potentially damage the preservation of Bristol Bay and could endanger salmon hatcheries and wildlife in the region. She continues to feel compelled to give away Alaskan land rights to outside corporate interests in the ANWR.

Much has been made about how Alaska is simply a wilderness crying out for exploitation. This is reminiscent of the attitude in Brazil towards the interior rainforests. One should take note of the deforestation, forced displacements of indigenous peoples and the threats to native species that accompanied Brazil’s growth strategy before one looks to duplicate it in Alaska. Governor Palin has NOT shown herself up to the task of Governor and has failed to focus on defending Alaska’s natural resources, preserving its unique environment or protecting and enhancing the democratic rights of Native Alaskans. Most of the problems have NOT been of her making, but neither has she demonstrated the ability to “think outside the box” of the powerful economic interests seeking to come into the state for their own short-term profits. -->

What's growth got to do with it?

I had an interesting exchange with Grist's David Roberts on twitter tonight.   It began when @drgrist came through with this tweet.

Dear Beltway journalists: economic slowdown, not increased spending, causing current deficit. Solution not less spending, but more growth.

I could not pass up the opportunity to question this chase after growth, and so I responded using the Green Party CA id, GPCA.…

@drgrist Isnt' the need for growth at all costs part of the problem? Energy? Population? Water? Food?

Roberts was attentive enough to reply.

@GPCA We need to decouple growth from resource consumption in long-term. Short-term, we need to save O's political bacon...or Pres Palin.

And there you have the Democratic Party platform if the race were being run now… and in many ways it is. Anybody but Palin.

This still sidesteps the basic question of when, if ever, will it be proper to talk about this decoupling of growth from resouce consumption. I listened to a piece on NPR about climate change and the tragedy of the commons this AM. That is what seems to be playing out here. We all know what is good for everyone. But our fears keep us from doing it, whether it is Roberts's fear of a President Palin, the Obama - Summers - Geitner group fear of an economy without growth to pay off our debts, or the Republican's fear that someone else will have the economic magic for the 21st Century.

So we muddle along. Politicians preen in public but compromise, shave the results, are satisfied with mincing little steps in the right direction because "that is what we can do this term."

Well, I am not satisfied and neither should you be. If politicians are not going to deliver a sustainable future, if they are only using that word "sustainable" to make us believe, then maybe we need to go watch The Road to get a reminder what what can happen. I have not seen that movie. I did read the book. The review in the Washington Post seems to remind us of just why Washington seems not to understand.

If leaders will not lead, then we need to elect new leaders. If some corporation would sell us the koolaid, then it is time to just stop buying. If growth would bring the end, then start planning for a steady state economy. It is no longer up to them. It is up to us.

Republican spinsters waiting for Ifil and Palin

Here is one way the the Republicans might play a Palin meltdown in tonight's debate. They are already complaining that moderator Gwen Ifill has a conflict of interest and that any tough questions to Palin will be charged to her making sure that Obama gets elected and her book on Obama sells well.

Sarah Palin Alaskan Star

For those who think I lack a sense of humor, this did bring more than a chuckle.

I need to stop watching Bill Moyers Journal on Friday evenings. I don't sleep well after. This time, he talks of the role of politics in controlling the media. There are those on the left who think it is the other way around, but I am not sure that they really understand what is happening with the 4th Estate.


Moyers begins this segment by citing novelist Russel Banks.

we choose our presidents not on the basis of their experience or even their political views, but on how well they tap into our basic beliefs, our deepest communal desires, including our religious or spiritual beliefs.

It is clear to see that is what is happening with Sarah Palin. It seems that no matter what the media does, and they have done a lot, people have responded to Palin at a visceral level that defies rational analysis.

He then goes on to show a CNN segment where Campbell Brown, not one of my favorite journalists, gained some esteem by not accepting the talking point that being the nominal commander of the Alaskan National Guard provided Palin with any valid experience. All Campbell did was to keep repeating the question that the McCain/Palin publicity flack kept ducking.

Can you tell me one decision that she made as Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard, just one?

This was set up as "belittling" her experience and the result was to cancel a McCain appearance on CNN.

This is the entire segment. The cited material as almost at the end.

We Greens have a real quandry. The truth about candidates does not make it through the media. Many of the public are reacting to the myth rather than the facts. The corporate media becomes the enemy, not of the public, but of the politicians who rail against the media so that you stop trusting them.

From the days of founding of this country, we have been told that an informed citizenry is essential for Democracy. Now, we have a bunch of politicians who are trying to make us stupid, who do not want us to be informed, but rather to be controlled.

If people want a myth to believe, what are we giving them? I hope that is is one of a new future, not a bleak past, of potential to be realized, not of opportunity squandered.

We may turn to the Internet, but then the responsibility for determining truth is now on us. Caveat emptor. I am not sure that most of us are up to the task. The internet is a very Balkanized space where people who share beliefs reinforce those beliefs with each other and do not reach beyond their immediate. If we are looking to the Internet to be the way we tell the world about ourselves, that we attract new members, then we probably need to provide a degree of professional management of what we say and how we say it.

If there is any one position in this party that we need to turn into a full time paid position, it is that of press secretary. The work to counteract the BS that is generally available is just too daunting to rely on volunteers to get the job done.

The work

Republican's last grasp for energy scares me

I've gotten my share of emails from Mato Ska over the years. They are often informative. However, this time he really caught me by surprise. The subject was Oppose H.R. 6887. So, I jumped over to Thomas and it isn't even posted there yet. But, here is what we do know. The description of the bill is bad enough. "To authorize the President or a designee of the President to waive any legal requirement under any provision of Federal law otherwise applicable to a covered energy project as the President or such designee determines necessary to ensure expeditious conduct of such project, and for other purposes." Now, that is really getting desperate. This is ridiculous. I know that Shadegg (AZ-03) needs some attention, as he may be in position to lose his seat but this is a law that only Sarah Palin could love.

Friedman on ET (Environmental Technology)

Thomas Friedman does more than write columns for the NY Times. He also writes books and then does a very good job of promoting them all over the media. His latest book is Hot, Flat and Crowded and he has been promoting it with vigor: Sunday on Meet the Press, this morning on GMA, and also on NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross. Click read more to read Lorna Salzman's very articulate commentary after listening to Friedman on Fresh Air.


Commentary on Thomas Friedman, Hot, Flat and Crowded, and the upcoming election:
by Lorna Salzman.

Today Terry Gross interviewed one of my least favorite journalists on her show: Thomas Friedman, someone that most of us do not regard as an environmental friend. But Friedman spoke with fervor and guts, and emphatically put his finger on the utter failure of American energy policy, due to Bush, the Republicans, the oil companies, and on the absence of incentives for reducing energy consumption or increasing renewable energy.

What he didn't do, however, was to include the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Barack Obama, in his stern lecture.

He criticized Sarah Palin, the Repubs' VP candidate, for denying global warming even as parts of her state melt away. He criticized Republican senators in Ohio and New Hampshire for opposing renewable energy tax credits even though their states harbor two leading renewable energy companies, who, as a result of the loss of tax credits, are moving operations abroad. He criticized the fact that utilities make money from a rate structure that encourages selling more energy rather than less. He bemoaned the fact that there is no tax on carbon, with revenues being rebated to the public through abolition of the payroll tax. And so on.

What he didn't do, however, was rake Obama and the Dems over the coals on the energy issue. This is an amazing oversight, given that everyone agrees that the economy and jobs are going to be the key issues in the election. Obama has hedged and fudged on domestic oil drilling, supports "clean coal" and "safe" nuclear power, but has yet to connect these and the things Friedman raised to his campaign or the election.

Once again, the Democrats are running a campaign out of fear, not principle, not science, not equity, not justice. Like their refusal to come all out for a single payer universal health plan overseen by the government and funded through the income tax, they are dropping the the energy ball, even though the energy issue offers them by far and without a doubt a HUGE opportunity to present the public with a serious and comprehensive economic plan to restore jobs and renovate American industry, transportation and infrastructure.

Why are the Democrats self-destructing again? The answer is quite simple. When your opponent is as cravenly hypocritical and inept and wrongheaded as McCain is, there is no point in playing your strong card when you can win with your weak one. Once again the Dems are taking liberals and their party faithful for granted by saying: you guys have nowhere else to go so stop your whining, you know you will vote for us no matter what. This is cynicism and contempt writ large.

So we must ask: where have the liberals been? What have they been doing? Well, we know many of them have been protesting the war. Many of them are defending Roe vs. Wade. Many are pushing gay rights. Many are protesting racism and poverty.

Duh. They have been doing this for years. When was the last time a liberal Democrat walked into her congressman's office, slammed a fist on the table, and said: I want single payer universal health care, I want it now, and I DONT want anything else. When was the last time she walked into that office and slammed a fist down and said: I want a tax on carbon and gasoline, and I want the money from that to replace the payroll tax. I want it NOW and I dont want anything less.

The big question, however, is this: when was the last time a Democrat, or a liberal group or PAC, said to that congressman: if you don't do this, I won't vote for you. And when was the last time a Democrat withheld her vote because her congressman didn't listen to her? Didn't vote for him at all? Or voted for Ralph Nader? When was the last time that a liberal lobby marched into the capitol demanding an energy bill that did all the things that Friedman says we need?...carbon taxes, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, renewable energy tax credits, mandatory energy efficiency standards and measures?

When was the last time that anyone, any GROUP or movement, put energy and environment first? When they finally understood that these issues are the most important and urgent issues of the day? That we have a global ecological crisis that results directly from economic (and population) growth and overconsumption?
When was the last time that anyone but an environmentalist said out loud:
Economic growth must end. What are the chances that the Democrats will say or do anything about these things?

What should liberals do? Here's what they should do. They should make it clear to the Democratic Party and to their Democratic congressmen that THEY WILL NEVER VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN, or for Obama, unless he and the party get off their butts and get serious, and unless the party stops taking them for granted. They should lay it on the line: we don't care if our vote helps McCain win, because the Democrat/Obama energy policy not only isn't much better than McCain's, but even if it is marginally better, it is completely inadequate and, worst of all, dishonest and misleading.

Unless enrolled Democrats and liberals and their pressure groups speak out loud and clear and say that their vote is up for grabs, Obama not only won't win but he won't DESERVE to win.

Don't let the Democrats hoodwink and blackmail you again. Tell the Dems:
defecate or get off the pot.

Lorna Salzman

Fidelity to Fact

I don't want to step on Alex's important post, but also want to make a real point about politics and the media. So, read what Alex wrote, and then click read more below to join me on the jump.


Following the presidential conventions, I knew that Bill Moyer's Journal would feature a conversation between Moyers and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. I tuned in to Moyer's Journal on PBS last night and was not disappointed. It was a particularly pointed conversation because both McCain and Palin had taken shots at the Liberal Media. Of course, Liberal Media Bias has always been part of the Rush Limbaugh rant and this time it became almost a chant in St. Paul.

What Jamieson did was to indicate that there is nothing sexist about the media questioning the readiness of any of the candidates.

Is it fair to ask about the experience of any candidate for vice president? Of course. Any candidate for president? Of course. And it isn't sexist or racist to raise that question.

However, she had little patience for those who, in the haste to break a story, get it wrong.

Now you have a moment in which journalism has deceived its audience because in the rush to make this point about possible hypocrisy, a major commentator (Soledad Obrien) on a major network (CNN) has asserted as fact something which doesn't hold up. It took the FactCheck.org researcher that I called on my staff about four hours to get back to the primary research documents.

In fact, the story that Soledad used had been circulating on the internet for a while before she, or her producer, grabbed it.

Moyer's raised the question that all of us should be asking, what are we to do when we can't trust the media. Jamieson had analyzed this in terms of the 2004 election.

The problem is that one can't trust anymore from some of these sources that there's going to be a fidelity to fact in the presence of contest. One of the things that we showed in 2004, from the National Annenberg Election Survey, was that those who are reliant on Rush Limbaugh and on Fox News accepted the Republican view of the facts.

Those reliant on NPR and CNN were more likely to accept the Democratic view of the contested facts. Now sometimes there's legitimate contest. Sometimes, however, what you essentially had was spin and distortion on each side. Those who are relying on newspapers and traditional forms of news were still more likely to hold a non-contested view of those facts.

The further we get away from any sense that elections have anything to do with the contest of ideas. the more I sense that we are vulnerable to a fascist pupulism and that scares the hell out of me especially as newspapers seem to be losing readership daily.

Community Organizer

A potter friend of mine put the following quip on a pottery related e-list today. I think it is a good example of just how badly some twist words to mean what they want them to.

Jesus was a community organizer.
Pontius Pilate was a Governor.

Now Lee Love used to be a Green so I guess I can quote him here.

Liberal Media part of Vast Right-wing Conspiracy

When Sarah Palin took the podium to accept the VP nomination, she did not remind me in the least of Hillary Clinton. In that, I am joined by many women. Still, when she opened up on the liberal media, she did begin to sound a bit like the Senator from NY. Only Hillary found the media to be part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." I guess we get it both ways. Still, I need to explain why getting both major parties pissed off in not necessarily a sign of good journalism.


As an avid consumer of journalism, or that which passes for it these days, I most frequently find that no one is asking the questions I would like to see answered. For example, here is what I would like to ask Ms. Palin... or, in fact all Presidential or Vice-Presidential Candidates:

• Do you really believe that the world is getting warmer, as many scientists claim?
  
• Assuming that they say "yes" then: Do you believe that it is caused, or made worse, by our acts as citizens?
• Again, assuming a "yes" answer: How do you explain your current energy policy given what you just said about global warming?
• Is, as some, including the US Military, claim that Global Warming is a Global Security Issue, what are you doing to keep the US safe from it's effects.
  

None of these candidates have a good answer. Not one of the mainstream media journalists would be willing to ask. How about it, Lehrer, Browkaw, Schieffer? Are you up to this or are you afraid that your network will lose ad revenue if you get too tough?

What I, as a voter, want to hear, are the answers to the real concerns that I have and I want the follow up to expose the inconsistencies when they are obvious. Nothing would be more obvious than the ones that are so evident in the candidates (all of them) public positions on global warming and energy.

I will not hold my breath. We will not get to hear real ideas unless Barr and McKinney are invited as well. Talk of experience: Both were in Congress longer than Obama.

What really happened at the RNC.

I really love David Roberts summary of what went on so far that the RNC. You can read the whole thing at Gristmill, or just this summary.

To be fair, the speeches by Giuliani and Palin were masterful examples of the art form. Giuliani knows how to use mockery and contempt like few other speakers, and Palin clearly relished playing the "pit bull with make-up." They got in some great lines and put the crowd in a frenzy. I bet if you polled Republicans right now more of them would support Palin than McCain.

But do they think this is going to win it for them in a year of economic downturn and Democratic ascendancy? More tax cuts and foreign policy belligerence? More oil company populism? The base rallying strategy, again? I'm not sure what else they've got in their quiver, but some part of me thought they'd try something new. Seems not. It's going to be a long, ugly 60 days.

Clean Coal is a Dirty Lie

Sarah Palin was put forward as the Republican expert on Energy. She did show a lot of energy in her speech, quick to the attack, pausing only for effect on the zingers she shot. However, when it came to the subject of energy policy, she showed a remarkable lack of knowledge when putting forward the suggestion that America should work for Clean Coal.


Let me give a good example of what clean coal really means. It begins with the removal of a mountain top and the filling of valleys to expose the coal. This is not the old time strip mining, unless that practice were on steroids. There are more photos here.

Let me remind you that the Green Party affiliate, the Mountain Party of West Virginia, is a leader in the fight against such ravages to the environment. Still, that is only the beginning.

There was a major Federal program under the administration of George "W" Bush that was intended to develop a new technology for coal fired power plants. It was called the NextGen program. There is an industry council formed by leading coal producers that is leading the way in convincing everyone that this is a real possibility sometime out in the distant future. Now, they are talking about 2015.

Of course, they have not stopped to consider that the continued expansion of conventional coal fired plants... even the continued operation of existing plants... will quite possibly push the current global warming past a tipping point. That, my friends, is a risk that the Republicans... and the Democrats... want you to take.

What none of them tell you is that the US Dept. of Energy scrapped the FutureGen clean coal project in 2008.

The DOE last year signed an agreement with the FutureGen Alliance, a coalition of coal and oil companies, to spend about $950 million on a demonstration coal-fired power plant that injects carbon dioxide emissions underground. Last December, a site for the FutureGen project in Matoon, Ill., was announced by the Alliance.

It was deemed to be too expensive for the payback.

DOE is turning to Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) as a solution to the problem of the buildup of Greenhouse Gasses, the prime cause of global warming. While some things work, others are still very, very expensive and, we don't have the time if we are going to stop the warming of this planet.

When Sarah Palin puts on her Peabody Energy hat and talks about clean coal, you know that it may lead to votes but it is ultimately only a lot more hot air that we can't afford to have around.