WTF, Burma?

The new capital of Myanmar (BBC News)

Dictator Ne Win ruled Burma (now called "Myanmar") with an iron fist from 1962 to 1988, sometimes employing a style that had the strangeness that still characterizes Burmese rule. He was heavy into astrology, and would make important policy decisions based on the whims of his astrologer(s). To avoid assassination, he allegedly follow a superstition of stomping on a slab of raw meat while shooting his visage in a mirror with a handgun. He even changed the Burmese currency (kyat) denominations to correspond with his lucky numbers, which, needless to say, caused a financial crisis in a country that has always been poor in its recent history.

To this day, Myanmar is ruled by a military junta that "came to power" in a 1988 coup during uprisings where thousands of protesters were murdered. The coup was really just the retention of power by the old dictatorship (but not the old dictator) under a different name. Oppressive regime, Mach II, claims to have embraced democracy, but it is really just a shell game. In 1990, a parliamentary election was held in which the real democratic party, the National League for Democracy, led by Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, won a vast majority of seats. The State Law and Order Restoration Council, as the junta endearingly called itself, simply declared the results void, claiming that it was not really an election. The SLORC has been ruling ever since (now calling themselves, even more endearingly, the State Peace and Development Council), the NLD has been kept under raps and not allowed to organize, Aung San Suu Kyi has spent much of her time under house arrest, and Myanmar is riddled with human rights abuses, forced labor, in-fighting, drug smuggling, severe poverty, and fear of government persecution.

It's hard to know exactly what is going on in Myanmar, though. Besides North Korea, it is perhaps the most secretive country on the planet. The media is largely state-run. It is hard for visitors to get far past the major city (and former capital) of Yangon (formerly Rangoon), and sanctions from most Western countries make it difficult anyway. If they do, it may very well be that they will be surveiled by government spies. The regime doesn't want to show outsiders what they already know: how poorly the country is faring in terms of economic and social indicators.

But now things may become even more secretive, because, in a move that has simply bewildered many observers, the regime is moving the capital from Yangon, on the coast of the Bay of Bengal, to near the town of Pyinmana, in the center of the country. More specifically, it is creating a new capital from scratch, called Naypyidaw.

Burma's decision to shift its seat of government has left many analysts at a loss to explain the move.

After all, why go to the huge trouble and expense of relocating thousands of officials to a remote mountainous region, when there is a well-established political infrastructure in the port city of Rangoon?

[snip]

[Analysts] said the real reason was probably still a mystery, but it was possible the country's hard-line military rulers were worried about foreign invasion, or wanted more control over ethnic minorities in the border regions, or were even following the advice of fortune tellers.

[snip]

Joseph Silverstein believes the most likely explanation for the relocation is advice by traditional Burmese fortune-tellers.

"Everybody listens to fortune-tellers in Burma," he said.

General Ne Win, who came to power in 1962, was totally dependent on their advice, Mr Silverstein added.

"He is once said to have decided to change the direction of traffic overnight [as a result of a fortune teller]. It caused a huge number of accidents," he said.

While all Myanmar government offices will be moving to Naypyidaw, diplomats and embassies have not been told to follow, which might pull the plug on the already tenuous awareness outsiders have of Burmese affairs.

New EPA regulations and cleaner snowmobiles

The Environmental Protection Agency, oft maligned by liberals and environmentalists alike for their lax protection of the environment, recently took a step forward this past month by proposing an initiative to cut the emissions of smog and soot produced by diesel engine boats and trains (EPA). The announced program will take hold in 2007 and continue phased in initiatives though 2015 based on the size and model of the engine. All told, the EPA expects to reduce diesel engine particulate pollution from by 90 percent, smog-forming nitrogen oxides by 80 percent, and decrease the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in marine vessels by 99 percent.

However, General Electric, the nation’s largest locomotive producer, wrote the EPA and asked for weaker smog standards because they lacked the technology to meet the new standards. (This is the same company that joined a consortium of scientists and businesses asking for stronger CO2 emission standards.) Despite their objection, a recent study projected the cost of upgrading diesel engines are estimated at $600 million, or an additional 3 percent to the cost of the locomotive and at most 3.6 percent to the price of boats.

On the other hand, the “health benefits are estimated at $12 billion by 2030, including 1,500 fewer premature deaths, 1,100 fewer hospitalizations and 170,000 more work days by people breathing easier.” According to Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, “We estimate the emissions benefits will be equivalent to taking three-quarters of a million diesel trucks off the road each year” (MSNBC).

Although this does not affect all pollution emitting engines, a new program is underway to produce a zero-emission snowmobile. Currently, Yellowstone National Park phased out the usage of snowmobiles because of their detrimental affect on the environment (MT Department of Environmental Quality). How bad exactly are snowmobiles for the environment? According to a National Park Service revised 2001 report on Impacts of Snowmobiles in National Parks:

“The two-stroke engines produce amounts of unburned HC and CO similar to that produced by automobiles before the 1970 Clean Air Act. These two-stroke engines still produce significant amounts of fine (PM-2.5) particulate matter emissions due to the method of scavenging, leaving the exhaust and fuel inport ports open at the same time. The best estimates available comparing snowmobile emissions to average automobile emissions conclude that a traditional snowmobile produces ten to 70 times more CO and between 45 and 89 times more unburned HC than an average car. (Peaks to Prairies, for more in depth studies, see Lab Testing of Snowmobile Emissions prepared for the National Park Service).”

This year, four National Science Foundation- supported teams competed at the Society of Automotive Engineers Clean Snowmobile Challenge. The teams, consisting of college and university members of the SAE, were each given $10,000. The teams are not only attempting to reduce emissions, but also reduce their noise level and overall impact on the environment. The winning group will go to Greenland to work directly with the NSF’s research and development of a cleaner snowmobile. (Science Daily)

A Blow to Good Old Idealism

These articles make me disappointed more than anything else:

The Guardian - The web works for the grassroots, but political power still lies with the few

It suits the mythology of meritocracy that remains so central to American identity to have young children walking around in T-shirts saying "Future president of America". But the truth is if your kid really does stand a chance at the top office, he'll already be wearing more expensive attire. America's class system is now more rigid than most in Europe, and that sclerosis is given full expression at the highest levels of politics. Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa, Chicago mayor Richard Daley and Southern Christian Leadership Conference head Martin Luther King all carry the names and job titles of their fathers. Each year the richest quarter per cent make 80% of all political donations. The last time there was not a Clinton or a Bush on the presidential ticket was 1976. This is not democracy, it is dynasty.

AP - Republicans frosty on Gore's global warming warnings

"You're not just off a little; you're totally wrong," said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as he challenged Gore's conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures.

Barton and Gore's exchange grew testy at one point -- Barton demanding that Gore get to the point and Gore responding that he would like time to answer without being interrupted.

"Global warming science is uneven and evolving," Barton said.

Gore insisted that the link is beyond dispute and is the source of broad agreement in the scientific community.

TimesSelect Free with .edu address

I was just skimming the New York Times Web site and they've changed their policy so that anyone with a .edu e-mail account can gain free access to their subscriber-only content online.

Sign up here

There's some extra incentive to go to grad school right there.

George Will's Traffic Congestion Solution: Repackaging the Status Quo

x-post: Brudaimonia

George Will has a keen ability to package ill-informed nonsense in a shiny wrap of apparent erudition.

Not that I disagree with all of the points in his recent article on traffic congestion entitled "Fighting the Real Gridlock." I am in favor, for example, of dynamic tolling on highways and reforming transportation pork. It's just that the spirit of the whole article contradicts itself by reaffirming the status quo it purports to shatter.

It starts off well by recognizing the costs of traffic congestion: monetary costs, family time, time for civic engagement, and so forth. (Will's occasional mention of transportation secretary Mary Peters, perhaps some politically-motivated hat tip, is awkward, as she is not really essential to the article.) Will notes that

[i]n the past 20 years, congestion in the 85 largest cities has caused the number of hours lost each year by the average driver in rush hours to increase from 16 to 47. In the 13 largest cities, drivers are stuck in traffic the equivalent of nearly eight workdays.

But then comes the call for "fresh thinking and departures from the status quo." Since the status quo has been building new highways and adding new lanes to old highways, it's exciting to hear what this "fresh thinking" might be.

There must be new highways and new lanes on some old ones.

Aw, what a letdown. The psychology of prior investment affects even the most erudite among us, for even they can't let go of the infrastructure that currently makes possible nearly half the world's automotive carbon emissions.

But there also must be new ways -- made possible by new technologies -- of using lanes.

No doubt we must forge ahead with new technologies to reduce congestion on existing highways, yet Will's big solution is just a refurbishing of the status quo. Or, as James Howard Kunstler would call it, "a desperate wish to keep the cars running by any conceivable means, at all costs."

To make this tired old scheme justifiable, Will must brush aside the formidable objection that is the theory of "induced travel": adding more car lanes to a highway only increases demand to drive on it.

The usual scolds -- environmentalists, urban "planners," [ouch, those quotation marks sting deep] enthusiasts for public transit (less than 5 percent of the workforce uses it) -- argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and hence are self-defeating. But as Ted Balaker and Sam Staley respond in their new book on congestion, "The Road More Traveled," among the 10 largest metropolitan areas, Los Angeles has the least pavement per person; Dallas has twice as much per person and half as much congestion.

Responding to conservative misinformation is like playing "Find the Fallacy." Here Will uses a single, flawed comparison, cited from a book by two conservative libertarians, in an attempt to disprove induced travel and implicitly argue against the fact that highway-heavy, transit-poor cities are recipes for congestion. Dallas does indeed have less congestion than Los Angeles, yet Will presents no evidence that it is because of its pavement levels. The fallacy is implied causality in the presence of mere correlation. In reality, there are many, many factors that contribute to, or mitigate, traffic congestion.

A simple look at the numbers casts doubt on Balaker and Staley's claim. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in the 21-year period from 1982 to 2003, congestion in both Dallas and Los Angeles increased. But Dallas's congestion increased at a rate 61% higher than that of Los Angeles. This is because Dallas's congestion index increased 46 points over that time period, while Los Angeles's congestion index increased only 28 points. In fact, Los Angeles has held its congestion relatively steady since 1990, while Dallas's congestion index has risen 23 points.

What has been happening in Los Angeles to keep its congestion steady over the last 17 years? It might have something to do with mass transit, the real gridlock fighter. Los Angeles's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) opened the region's first light rail line in 1990, its first heavy rail line in 1993, and another light rail line in 1995 (Wikipedia). MetroLink, the regional rail system, began service in 1992. The Antelope Valley Transit Authority, covering the exurbs of Lancaster and Palmdale, was formed in 1992. And these are not all of the transit additions Los Angeles made in the early 90s.

Of course, back in the day, Los Angeles used to have an excellent streetcar before it was slowly killed by General Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and other corporations seeking to force Angelenos to use their products to get around.

Today, the city is fighting the legacy of smog and congestion created by auto-dependent infrastructure and is embracing increased transit capacity and smart growth strategies. It has a long way to go, but LA has a chief planner, Gail Goldberg, and a mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, who recognize the importance of smart growth.

Public transportation, not selling toll roads to private companies, is what will relieve America's congestion, and Americans are beginning to recognize this, even if George Will doesn't. In 2006, 10.1 billion trips were taken via public transportation, the largest public transportation ridership in 49 years.

Public transit use is up 30 percent since 1995. That is more than double the growth rate of the population (12 percent) and higher than the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled on our roads (24 percent) during that same period. In 2006, public transit ridership grew 2.9 percent over 2005.

The article noted that light rail use increased by the highest percentage (5.6 percent). Madison officials may want to take note of that figure, as the city considers building its own light rail line. Minneapolis's new light rail line continued its ridership success with an 18.4 percent increase. This is a rail line that was opposed tooth-and-nail by then--State House Majority Leader (and now Governor) Tim Pawlenty. Even Dallas residents are tiring of all that pavement: bus ridership in the city was up 8.3 percent in 2006.

And this is all only 1.5 years removed from the passage of SAFETEA-LU, the infamous pork-laden transportation bill steered primarily by Alaska Republicans, lopsided by massive highway allocations, including the notorious "Bridges to Nowhere," and relatively scant public transit and bicycle rations.

Besides relieving congestion, the huge benefit of public transit is the gas it saves. The APTA found that transit's record ridership saved 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline, which is enough to fill gasoline cans that could stretch to the moon (PDF). Traffic congestion, on the other hand, wastes 2.3 billion gallons of gasoline (FHWA).

Yes, there are some things we can do on the highways to relieve congestion, but focusing solely on highways misses the larger solution of increased alternative transportation. But seeing that solution will require actual fresh thinking and freedom from the pavement status quo.

Update to SCHIP Program

On March 15th, Senators Hillary Clinton and John Dingell offered a bill expanding Children's Health Insurance Program. They want to triple spending over the next 5 years by at least $50 billion. As a result nearly all uninsured children will have some access to federally subsidized health insurance. This is important because several studies have shown children with health insurance in general miss less school due to illness. Hopefully President Bush will not insist on cutting the budget of the program, and veto this bill.

Source: New York Times

No, Ethanol Can't Cure Cancer

A recent Associated Press article questions recent predictions by ethanol advocates that the biofuel is a miracle cure for eliminating America's dependence on foreign oil and reducing carbon emissions.

This Q&A-style article lays out the basics of ethanol and questions the perfect-fuel scenario being put forth by ethanol advocates. Right now, most of the media's focus is on the potential advantages of ethanol, but there isn't much discussion of the realities behind its creation.

The article has answers that may surprise people. For example:

But aren't there environmental benefits to ethanol?

If you make ethanol from corn, the environmental benefits are limited. When you consider the greenhouse gases that are released in the growing and refining process, corn-based ethanol is only slightly better with regard to global warming than gasoline. Growing corn also requires the use of pesticides and fertilizers that cause soil and water pollution.

The environmental benefit of corn-based ethanol is felt mostly around the tailpipe. When blended into gasoline in small amounts, ethanol causes the fuel to generate less smog-producing carbon monoxide. That has made it popular in smoggy cities like Los Angeles.

Paul Peterson, a field supervisor for the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation wrote a letter to the La Crosse Tribune last week promoting the use of ethanol. He claims that, "if every car in America would burn 10 percent ethanol, it could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." This statement immediately prompts a few questions like, "where would we get the other 90% of our auto fuel" and "where would we get all of the ethanol from"? Just the title of his letter (which may have been given by the Tribune), is just plain wrong.

I realize that there is a strong contingent in this country who would love it if the demand for corn kept increasing, but they shouldn't be bending the truth to fit their economic agenda.

To restate an observation that's been made on this blog before, further development in ethanol, especially with crops that have a higher energy efficiency, like sugar cane, can be a part of the
renewable energy equation, but it most certainly isn't, "the answer."

When hippies attack...

…usually nothing goes right. Precisely this occurred last week when three hippies (or possible GOP operatives) ambushed and filmed Wisconsin Rep. David Obey. In doing so, they embarrassed themselves, trivialized the Iraq War issue, and forced Obey to apologize (PFD). Although I do not feel that he even needed to apologize, thankfully he did not back down from his position. This group, for some unbeknownst reason, attacked one of the leading critics of the war who, unlike Kerry or Clinton, did not initially vote for the war. As Bru linked to in a previous post, he is not only against the escalation, but wants to end our involvement as soon as possible. This group would have been better served confronting John McCain of Joe Libbermann (especially given their proclivity to filibustering). Please enjoy watching these three make fools of themselves.



Republicans responded by alleging he used "the worst cuss words in the book" and dubbed him "Dirty Mouth Dave." They even went so far as to say that for Obey to use his "foul mouth on the taxpayer dime is a disgrace to the office" (JSonline.com) What would make that Dick Cheney then ("Go F*** yourself)"?

Madison Walks the Walk

x-post: Brudaimonia

In a nation with so many cities held hostage by car-dominated infrastructure, I am proud to say that Madison, Wisconsin has just been named the U.S.'s most walkable city by the American Podiatric Medical Association, aka foot doctors. (Actually, the APMA's title is "Best Fitness-Walking Cities," which I'll comment on later.)

Madison is reaping the benefits of its walker-friednly plan adopted 10 years ago. From the perspective of someone who has visited Madison many times yet never lived there, it really is enjoyable to walk around the city. Its walkability no doubt feeds off of its culture. UW obviously plays a big role. It has a strong local progressive mindset. It has one of the best local food systems in the country.

But its walkability also contributes to its culture. Try having a Halloween celebration like Madison's in Orange County, or Detroit, or Tuscon. You can't show off your Royal Tenenbaums costumes while driving an SUV on a collector road in suburban Atlanta.

Or...Miami? That's right, the warm-weather hub and home of New Urbanist pioneers Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk somewhat ironically is 98th, or third-last, on the list. I say "somewhat" because no doubt the percentage of elderly residents influences its low walkability. But come on, Miami, 98th?

The rest of the bottom five list sends a few shivers down urban planners' spines:

100. Newark, NJ: Has a high crime rate, few parks, and few people who take mass transit—as well as the third smallest percentage of people who walk for exercise.
99. Laredo, TX: Poor air quality and the least amount of people taking mass transit.
98. Miami, FL: The fifth highest crime rate may explain why very few people walk for health.
97. Hialeah, FL: Very few parks and schools per square mile and had the second to last number of people who walk for health.
96. Detroit, MI: With a high rate of pedestrian fatalities and high crime rates, is it any wonder Motor City had the smallest percentage of people who walk for health?

The crime rate--walkability causality goes both ways. High crime rates tend to discourage walking, for obvious reasons, but the contrapositive is also true: more walkable communities tend to have less crime. It's harder to get away with a crime when there are a lot of people walking around; the criminal's ideal setting is a dark, unpopulated street.

Madison's walkability no doubt contributes to its "friendliest city in the Midwest" ranking by Midwest Living in 2003.

Madison is no stranger to No. 1 rankings. People still talk about Money Magazine naming it the best place to live in 1998, although that ranking dropped to 53rd last year. Outside Magazine named it the best road biking city in August, and other high rankings have come for its being vegetarian-friendly, gay-friendly, environmentally friendly, and, well, according to Midwest Living in 2003, the overall friendliest city in the Midwest.

[snip]

Even with 40,000 students mostly walking to and from class — and bars at night — Madison has a remarkable bike trail system, with more than 30 miles of trails and 110 miles of bike lanes even on the busiest of streets. Not to mention the 6,000 acres of parkland. [AP article]

Here's the APMA's complete top ten list:

Top 10 Best Fitness-Walking Cities of 2007:

1. Madison, WI: Adopted a walker-friendly plan 10 years ago, and it shows.
2. Austin, TX: 50 trails, from a quarter to 10 miles long.
3. San Francisco, CA: The most parks per square mile.
4. Charlotte, NC: 40% of its residents walk for exercise.
5. Seattle, WA: Gorgeous views of Puget Sound and snowcapped mountains.
6. Henderson, NV: With an average yearly rainfall of 4.5 inches, you can walk every day.
7. San Diego, CA: A unique choice of beach, desert and mountain routes.
8. San Jose, CA: Perfect walking weather; average temp 61 degrees and low humidity.
9. Chandler, AZ: 6.5 miles of traffic-free walking on its Paseo Trail.
10. Virginia Beach, VA: A low crime rate and a boardwalk allow safe, fun strolling.

Austin may properly be called the "Madison of the South," and no doubt UT plays a similar role there as UW does for Madison. Henderson, San Jose, and Virginia Beach probably win on weather alone.

Which brings up a major flaw with this list: such factors as weather (which makes Madison's ranking all the more impressive) and athletic shoe sales say little about how walkable the community actually is. (I bet you there are tons of athletic shoe sales in the big box supercenters in Blaine, Minnesota, a sprawling Twin Cities exurb known for its gigantic athletic complex.)

That explains why a city like Las Vegas, which is about as walkable as the surface of Venus, reached #15 on the final rankings (PDF). Even on the Strip, where, of course, there are always a lot of people walking, you can't even cross a cross-street on the ground level. You are ushered up an elevator, across a skywalk, and down again to the other side.

The fact that Colorado Springs (13) is ahead of both Minneapolis (32) and St. Paul (26) is a joke. And Wichita (38) edging out New York (39)? Anchorage (18) beating Portland, OR (19)? The fact that Anchorage is in the top 20, much less the top 90, shows that this survey really doesn't get at the holistic concept of "walkable community." The Tony Knowles Coastal Trail notwithstanding, Anchorage, like Fairbanks, is a poster boy for auto-sprawl.

Actual walkable cities (Madison, Austin, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland) can do well on this list, and some walker-unfriendly cities are indeed ranked low (Newark, Miami, Detroit, Toledo, Tuscon, St. Petersburg, Oklahoma City, Houston, Tulsa) but other walker-unfriendly urban areas (Colorado Springs, Anchorage, Las Vegas, Phoenix (!), Reno) seem to be able to crack this list's top ranks just as easily as walkable communities. So this list has some use to it, but don't take every ranking at face value.

Go Big Green

Sustainable energy isn’t going to become the standard until it makes economic sense for people to turn from fossil fuels to renewable sources. One way to bring down costs is to use economies of scale to produce energy from renewable sources in large proportions.

The idea is similar to the way we produce energy from fossil fuels right now. People don’t have coal-burning generators behind their homes; they are connected by wires to a power plant. There are definitely more opportunities to capture clean energy in small batches via solar panels, but there’s no reason that communities can’t take advantage of large-scale energy production projects. The costs of individual solar panels or a wind turbine are still prohibitively expensive and geographically unfeasible for most people. A central source of renewable energy makes sense can make sense for individuals, communities, businesses, and institutions.

In today’s New York Times, Matthew Wald takes a look at large-scale alternative energy projects.

It’s all about the economics.

I mean seriously, what's wrong with a good ol' gook joke?

As a graduate of a Catholic high school, I am glad this man represents both the school and Catholics in general.

More on Organics

As Bru touched upon, organic and natural foods, now a $15 billion industry, is a major trend in United States. At the vanguard of organic grocery stores, Whole Foods, continually experienced robust profits and growth. Last week, they announced the purchase of its top rival, Wild Oats Markets, for $500 million. Although Whole Foods only recently opened a store in Madison, John Mackey and his girlfriend actually founded the company over 25 years ago. Just last week, the NPR program Marketplace, interviewed Whole Foods John Mackey. The short interview not only provides the inspiration for starting an organic food store, but also its history and future trends.

John Mackey Interview

Third Party Organic Certifiers

Cross-post: Brudaimonia

Bru's Note: This was originally posted as a diary on Daily Kos, as part of the excellent Recipe for America series started by Kossack OrangeClouds115. Recipe for America, along with OrangeClouds's popular Vegetables of Mass Destruction series, seeks to inform citizens about how to transform our food system into a sustainable one. They are some of Daily Kos's most useful and informative diaries, in my opinion, offering advice that can be carried out immediately to make the world a better place in which to live. I also recommend the Recipe for America website, which cross-posts the Daily Kos diaries and has a lot more juicy information.

Nearly 100 third party certifiers do the leg work behind that familiar green seal on the organic food you buy. They are farmers' associations, nonprofits, state departments of agriculture, businesses, and other organizations. They are accredited to certify different steps of the organic food production process.

Each organization is different. Their job qua certifier is to ensure that growers and producers stay chemical fertilizer- and pesticide-free, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about their positions on other food issues: source of food, treatment of workers, and so forth.

Below the fold is an introduction to third party certifiers.

Meat Beets and Potatoes Info

The USDA calls third party organic certifiers Accredited Certifying Agents (ACAs). There are 95 total ACAs: 55 from the US and 40 foreign. Thirty-six different US states have at least one ACA. California alone, not surprisingly, has 13, almost 1/4 of all US ACAs, and they're all in Berkeley...juuuust kidding. The agriculture departments of 14 states (Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Washington) are ACAs. In two other states, different government entities are certifiers: the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and the New Mexico Organic Commodity Commission.

One organization, Integrity Certified International (Nebraska), which became accredited (PDF) April 29, 2002, surrendered its accreditation October 31, 2006. I couldn't find any information on why they did this, but it could just be that they decided to focus on priorities other than running a certification program.

Another organization, American Food Safety Institute International (Wisconsin), had its accreditation revoked, the first revocation in the history of the NOC. AFSII "allowed an organic farm to use banned chemicals and broke several other federal regulations" (Dallas Morning News - PDF). More:

A report from the [National Organic Program] investigation said the company certified a seed farm that was treated with banned chemicals even after another certifier turned the farm down for that reason.

It also allowed a bottled-water company to use the USDA Organic label despite federal rules against designating water as organic.

Whoops! Now what kind of company would do stupid things like that?

American Food Safety is a four-person company overseeing about 30 organic operations in seven states and Mexico, according to USDA records.

It is part of the High Sierra Group, which also owns companies that make specialty chemicals for the food industry. [Ibid]

I'm not going to turn this into an investigative diary on a chemical company, but there are a few odd things about AFSI that I couldn't pass up. It was run out of the founder's car as late as 1999. In 2000, when its headquarters were finally located in something without wheels, AFSI (not to be confused with AFSII, which was separate) gave birth to The High Sierra Chemical Company. (Source: link below)

Now, the group could be a decent organization apart from its organic certification noncompliance -- I'm not going to pull a Seymour Hersh here and write a 10,000-word article on it -- but it certainly violated its own core principles on this one:

Be honest, forthright and candid with each customer. The customer may not always be right - we are straight forward!

OK, my penchant for tangents has manifested itself here. Back to the basic information on international certifiers.

The 40 foreign ACAs come from 19 different countries. (Keep in mind these are only certifiers accredited by the USDA.) Here is the breakdown by country, ordered by most to least ACAs:

Germany - 8
Italy - 6
Argentina - 4
Canada - 4
Australia - 2
Spain - 2
Switzerland - 2
Austria - 1
Bolivia - 1
Brazil - 1
Chile - 1
Costa Rica - 1
Greece - 1
Guatemala - 1
Israel - 1
Mexico - 1
Netherlands - 1
Peru - 1
Turkey - 1

Responsibilities

ACAs are responsible for (PDF):

1) Conducting certification activities according to the regulations.
2) Ensuring certified clients comply with all requirements of the NOP regulations.
3) Ensuring compliance with labeling requirements of products of operations they certify.
4) Approving organic systems plans for each operation they certify prior to onsite inspections.
5) Approving all inputs, ingredients, and other materials used by certified operations prior to their use.
6) Conducting annual onsite inspections of certified operations to verify implementation of an approved organic systems plan.
7) Issuing certification decisions and certificates in compliance with NOP regulations.
8) Issuing notices of noncompliance and suspending or revoking the certification of clients that do not comply with the NOP regulations.
9) Reporting adverse actions against certifiers to the NOP, including notices of noncompliance, proposed suspension, proposed revocation, suspension, revocation, or denial of certification to the AMS Compliance office.
10) Obtaining NOP approval for reinstatement of suspended or revoked operations prior to recertification.
11) Submitting annual updates of application information and annual reports of operations certified to the NOP.
12) Maintaining records as required in the NOP regulations.

Accreditation periods last for five years. Near the end of the period, the ACA must apply for renewal. ACAs must submit annual reports to the National Organic Program and correct any deficiencies found in their certification process. ACAs can become accredited to certify four different types of operations: crops, livestock, wild crop harvest, or handling (e.g. processing).

A Few Good Certifiers

Here are a few examples of popular organic certifiers.

Oregon Tilth

Oregon Tilth is a nonprofit research and education membership organization dedicated to biologically sound and socially equitable agriculture. Tilth's history begins in 1974, as an agricultural organization with a unique urban-rural outlook. Primarily an organization of organic farmers, gardeners and consumers, Tilth offers educational events throughout the state of Oregon, and provides organic certification services to organic growers, processors, and handlers internationally.

By including "socially equitable," Oregon Tilth addresses not only the growing process but also one of the issues discussed in OrangeClouds's recent VMD diary on organic standards. Here's more:

Oregon Tilth advocates sustainable approaches to agricultural production systems and processing, handling and marketing.

Oregon Tilth's purpose is to educate gardeners, farmers, legislators, and the general public about the need to develop and use sustainable growing practices that promote soil health, conserve natural resources, and prevent environmental degradation while producing a clean and healthful food supply for humanity.

[snip]

We provide speakers for groups and organizations interested in the work of Oregon Tilth or in specific topics such as gardening, alternatives to pesticides, composting, and food safety. Oregon Tilth coordinates conferences, produces events locally, and makes presentations at fairs, educational events, and trade shows throughout the region.

Oregon Tilth's organic program (OTCO) also works with retailers and restaurants (who do not need certification to sell organic products as long as they are not also processors, but who must nonetheless follow certain regulations).

Quality Assurance International

With a name that is on the other side of the "earthiness" spectrum from "Tilth," the San Diego-based QAI is one of the largest certifiers in the world. Their client list includes 976 operations! Here you'll find some of the large agribusinesses and their subsidiaries -- ConAgra, Nestle, Odwalla (Coca Cola) -- though needless to say they also certify independently-owned companies like Amy's Kitchen and Nature's Best. Don't think they're too corporate, though: they still wear flip-flops to staff meetings (or at least one guy does). I guess you can do that in San Diego. (You can even train for Antarctic marathons there.)

Bru's Soapbox

Organic certification says nothing about distance the food travels from land to plate, nor how workers on farms are treated, nor size of farm. However, ACAs can choose which operations they certify, and they can establish their own standards for which operations are eligible for their certification. Oregon Tilth, for example, clearly places an emphasis on smaller farms. According to their 2000-04 farms and handling statistics the average US farm certified by OTCO was 211 acres. About 66% of the 412 US farms they certified were located in Oregon, and they had an average acreage of 141. The farm size range with the most OTCO certifications was 10 to 50 acres, which included 121 farms. The third-highest range was under 10 acres (93 farms). Only 46 farms they certified were over 500 acres.

The problem is that large processors who get produce from long supply lines will still be able to find a certifier even if some certifiers emphasize locally sold products and smaller farms. The onus will still be on us, the consumers, to scrutinize labels, if we want to push organic foods up to even higher standards.

Cal Thomas: the Voice of the Unelightened

In Cal Thomas’ recent column, “Congressional Indian Givers,” he equated the two most recent Iraq resolutions passed by Congress, as the title implies, to ‘Indian giving’. He writes,

How else should one interpret this "nonbinding" resolution when part one said,
"Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the
members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served
bravely and honorably in Iraq," but part two negates part one: "Congress
disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10,
2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to
Iraq. This is like sending your love a valentine last week and this week
sending a note withdrawing the sentiment.

How should a discerning reader interpret this – as nonsense. I interpreted this column as a job posting for an editor, because it is obvious he lacks one. The entire premise of his article rests on the notion that disapproval of the Iraq War escalation is tantamount to abandoning or not supporting the troops. However, as anyone can clearly see, for his 'Indian Giver' or valentine analogy to work, supporting the troops and resisting the escalation must represent diametrically opposed concepts. They, in fact, do not negate each other, regardless of personal opinions on the war and surge. Actually, as Tim Ryan eloquently explicated in a previous post, supporting the troops means ending the war. Even if we reject that notion, supporting the troops does not automatically equate to supporting the escalation.

I think Mr. Thomas should have penned this several months, if not years ago, when the Congress failed to support our troops and our veterans. Where was Mr. Thomas when the Republican controlled Congress cut funding for the research and treatment of brain injuries caused by bomb blasts – the signature injury of the war (USA Today)? Did he admonish the administration for not supporting the troops when some soldiers resorted to ‘hillbilly armor’ because the pentagon did not provide sufficient protection for the vehicles? How come, more than two years after Secretary of Defense responded to equipment concerns by stating, “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” has the situation not improved? I did not notice an article condemning the administration for not supporting the troops. Nor did he comment on the lack of Congressional funding for Dr. Bob Meaders’ helmet upgrade. It took 3 years and Cher testifying before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces in order to obtain helmet upgrades for our soldiers (Operation Helmet). But yet, opposing the troop surge shows a lack of support for our troops?

Over a month ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Marine Corps General Peter Pace both testified to the House Armed Services Committee that a debate over the Iraq war does not undercut troop morale. General Pace:

As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide
the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops
will feel supported (ABC
News).

Congress pledged to support and protect the members of the US Armed Forces; in essence, doing exactly what Pace and Gates asked for. Unfortunately, it only occurred after Democrats gained control and 3 years after the war started.

Although both Senators Olympia Snowe and Barak Obama support the Iraq War resolution, they introduced new legislation establishing mandatory mental health screenings for all returning combat veterans. Mr. Thomas, this bill epitomizes the notion of supporting the troops.

And just recently, the Washington Post discovered the deplorable conditions our troops endure while convalescing at Walter Reed Medical Center. Do we really want to increase troop levels just to see more wounded soldiers face neglect while recuperating in moldy, rat-infested hospital rooms?

Further, Mr. Thomas quoted Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson’s disgust concerning the debate, in both this article and a previous column entitled “A Letter from Mosul.” In the column, Sgt. Dobson commented:

The American military has shown a stone-cold professional veneer throughout the
seething debate raging over Iraq. Beneath that veneer, however, is a fuming,
visceral hatred. We feel as though we have been betrayed by Congress.

And again in the Indian Giver column, stating:

…it made me furious to see congressmen unashamedly proclaim their cowardice, but
the reaction of the soldiers tore my heart in two. The faces were that of men
that looked as if they were just told there is no United States to go home to.
The fury gives way to depression: the thought alone that our elected
representatives do not represent us anymore is more than depressing. We see
cowardice, sickening spineless cowardice and it makes soldiers sick.

Although I am almost positive he cherry picked soldiers who agreed with him, I will provide a quote from, not a hand picked soldier against the war, rather Secretary Gates. At the House Armed Services Committee, he said:

I think they're sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the debate's
really about.

Perhaps Sgt. Dobson is not sophisticated enough. Both General Pace and Secretary Gates understand the distinction between ending a war and not supporting our troops, maybe Mr. Thomas should as well.

However, despite a survey from the US Army, reported in the LA Times in December that shows “American soldiers who serve repeated tours of duty in Iraq are more likely to suffer from acute stress,” he supports the surge, which will decrease the time between deployments and increase the number of tours for more than 11,400 National Guard troops (Army, LA Times article, and NYT). If the primary means of supporting our troops is sending more into battle, should we not remain constantly at war, for ending war is tantamount to not supporting our troops.

Mr. Thomas, you are the Indian Giver. You sir, do not support the troops. Your desire to send more of America’s finest young men and women into battle ill-equipped and fatigued from shortened leaves and lengthened tours shows your contempt for the armed services.

Among Our Childhood Celebrities

I'll take Raffi over Pat Sajak.

More Thoughts on Corn-based Ethanol

To add my thoughts to berg's and mike's recent posts...

It's time to put this matter to rest: There is no sustainable future in corn-based ethanol. Period. Even if all the farmland in the US was dedicated to growing corn for ethanol, it would currently only supply a small amount of our auto fleet's fuel demand. And then we'd have to import all of our food, using some kind of fuel to do so. We would do best to just forget about corn-based ethanol, even if the EROEI (energy received over energy invested) ratio is, in fact, above 1 (and I actually think it is, or could be made such, so don't consider me a devotee of the Pimentel/Padzek study).

The tragedy is that it is politically expedient to push it, given Iowa's role in presidential races. But expedience doesn't set you free. Nor can ethanol proponents hide the fact that, at present, it takes a lot of coal to produce. (See here and here.)

Corn-based ethanol is only a "bullet" in a too literal sense, as in, "We should try to avoid getting hit by one." Cellulosic ethanol, if it ever reaches beyond the experimental stage, could be used sustainably if on a small scale. In other words, don't think it will be the manna from heaven that nourishes or fuel-guzzling auto fleet. If made economically feasible, it could be useful in powering buses, paratransit, and emergency vehicles. But to think that ethanol will allow us to continue motoring well into the future with a smooth transition is the stuff of fantasy reserved for those who believe in a perpetual motion machine.

Democrats: Support Our Troops = No Escalation

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) delivers a courageous and bold speech that cuts through the haze of bullshit the Republicans have peddled on the Iraq war.



You can also see the strong speeches of Wisconsin Democratic Reps. Obey and Kagen at Nancy Pelosi's YouTube page.

Proving Ground News Alert: Anna Nicole Smith's Still Dead

In a Proving Ground exclusive, sources close to the Smith family told The Proving Ground, on a condition of anonymity, that Anna Nicole Smith is, in fact, dead. However, in a recent development, the court ordered the preservation of Smith’s body for an additional 10 days. It did so in order to perform DNA test to determine whether Ms. Smith is actually the mother of the child she recently birthed. Experts expect a contentious court battle as several women, including a Luxembourg princess, came forward last week proclaiming they were the mother of young Dannielynn. The Proving Ground will report any developments as they occur.

Promoting Sustainability in Milwaukee

I just received this update on Milwaukee's sustainability efforts from One Wisconsin Now, a progressive public policy institute based in Milwaukee:

Are Milwaukee's Leaders Ready to Go Green?

Recently the top scientists from around the world published a report stating what most people have come to already accept, climate change is real and human activity is making the matter much worse. Last week we published an Echo Chamber piece by James Rowen that stated, "Climate Change Report Should Spur Local Action." It appears that this advice was not lost on some public officials, namely Milwaukee County Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Supervisor Dimitrijevic proposed that Milwaukee County adopt higher environmental and conservation standards. In a press release she said, "Higher energy costs have put a major strain on departmental budgets within the County, which owns more than 800 buildings. Many of them have not been updated in decades. Modernizing the way we operate will pay dividends to our community over the long-term." Supervisor Dimitrijevic's plan includes the following items:

• Create a Director of Sustainability position to oversee current and future energy efficiency and eco-friendly initiatives and help County departments comply with the Green Print.
• Retrofit County buildings with high-performance, energy efficient technology.
• Require all departments to perform an internal audit of ways to improve energy efficiency.
• Direct the Public Works Director to purchase hybrid and alternative fuel powered vehicles.
• Turn unused parkland back into native grassland and prairie reserve areas, which would require no maintenance or the burning of fossil fuels.
• Manage storm runoff from County facilities and place recycling containers in all parks.
• Examine the potential use of "gray water" where treated water may not be needed.
• Require that all county supported construction projects meet Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) standards by 2008.
• Examine the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy to power County buildings.

Earlier this week Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett gave his state of the city address in which he highlighted various green programs in the city. He touted the new office of Sustainability, and plans to reduce energy costs at City Hall by $35,000. He also committed to reduce total energy usage by 15 percent by 2012 in addition to pledging action on various other environmentally friendly initiatives.

To make a global impact on our climate change crisis, we need more actions taken by leaders locally. It was just on Sunday when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Wisconsin's carbon dioxide emissions levels have grown faster over the last 25 years than they have nationally. These newly energized efforts in Wisconsin's largest city is a major step in the right direction. Hopefully these things will be greeted with enthusiasm and support by other local leaders and officials throughout the state.

These are all great ideas to both save money for taxpayers and reduce Milwaukee's environmental footprint. Nothing in Supervisor Dimitrijevic's plan is revolutionary or especially expensive... it all takes advantage of existing technology and construction guidelines. The way to gain support for sustainability is to highlight the economic benefits and it looks like Milwaukee is taking the right approach.

Global Warming Doesn’t Matter (Part 2 of 2)

Is ethanol the answer?

As for the debate over ethanol, I agree with Brett on most points. Ethanol is no silver bullet. To extend the analogy, it may be more of a rubber bullet. We really haven’t seen conclusive evidence that ethanol will produce a significantly greater amount of energy than the fossil fuels required to create it. All of the hype is coming from corn-producers and the governments (state and federal) that subsidize them.

If we are to use ethanol as a means of alternative energy, it would be best to use the most efficient types of biomass to produce it. This means using sugarcane instead of corn, as ethanol derived from sugarcane is more efficient. Brazil is currently the world’s largest producer of sugarcane ethanol, but the U.S. is currently imposing trade restrictions on its sale in the state to bolster domestic production of ethanol. (I hate to source Wikipedia here… but it’s the most comprehensive source I could find right now)

Oddly enough, it is several Senate Democrats including Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) are urging President Bush to maintain the current trade restrictions in an effort to support corn ethanol producers. Read their letter to President Bush. Democrats including Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Barack Obama (D-IL). It seems that serving their already-heavily-subsidized corn-producing constituents is more important than finding the most efficient fuel source for Americans.

Even with sugarcane ethanol, there’s the issue of the fuel costs to transport it to the U.S.

The solution to decreasing atmospheric pollution, slowing global warming, protecting ourselves from the exhaustion of fossil fuels, or whatever other energy-related problems you may think we have begins with investment in a “diverse portfolio” of renewable energy solutions.

Ethanol isn’t the end-all-be-all of fuel sources. There is no one answer, despite what our politicians might be telling us. In areas where there is lots of sunlight, install solar panels. In areas with lots of wind, install wind turbines. And so forth.

Moving energy only wastes energy. The farther you have to move fuel or the longer your electrical lines are, the less benefit there is.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, global warming is being used by anti-environmentalists and oil company cronies as an easy target. The media is displaying the question as being about whether or not there is global warming. The issue really should be boiled down into two facts: 1) Pollution harms human health and the environment 2) Fossil fuels won’t last forever.

Brett’s completely right that it would be careless to waste taxpayer dollars on research that is unnecessary and unlikely to produce real results. But, energy and sustainability research is absolutely necessary and has already produced results. The longer we wait to combat our energy problems, the tougher they’re going to be. In the end, I’m confident that the time, energy, and resources spent limiting our contribution to air pollution and lowering our dependence on fossil fuels will most not have been wasted.

As Brett noted, only 1% of the U.S. budget is spent on science and technology. I can only assume that major portions of that 1% go to medical and military research. And even the money we’re using for energy development is being spent on the wrong thing. According to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, “our economic health depends on the continued availability of reliable and affordable fossil fuels”. They are still pouring money into, “research and development of future fossil energy technologies”.

It’s about time we stop living in the industrial revolution and start working towards a sustainable future.

Global Warming Doesn’t Matter (Part 1 of 2)

In the last few years, it has become a widely acknowledged scientific fact that global warming is a dire and urgent issue facing the human race. However, there are some who still deny its existence or downplay its significance.

To them, I say: global warming doesn’t matter.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that global warming won’t cause the ice caps and glaciers to melt. Let’s assume that the oceans won’t rise to drive millions from their homes and the weather won’t change in unpredictable and dangerous ways.

The main rationale of those who deny global warming is that human action isn’t the cause for global climate change. Even if this were a logical argument, it is impossible to argue that human action has no effect on the environment.

Whether or not it heats up the earth, air pollution is harmful

Regardless of its effect on climate change, air pollution is extremely dangerous to both humans and the environment.

According to CBS News:

“Air pollution threatens the health of human beings and other living things on our planet. While often invisible, pollutants in the air create smog and acid rain, cause cancer or other serious health effects, and diminish the protective ozone layer in the upper atmosphere…”

Pardon the double negative, but you can’t argue that air pollution is not bad… no matter how much the oil companies pay you.

It’s so easy to ignore or hide facts that, if accepted, would demand a change in the western life of convenience and, to be honest, excess, that we in the U.S. have come to accept and embrace. I understand that it’s tough for any politician to get re-elected by telling voters that they shouldn’t use as much electricity and shouldn’t drive as much. In fact, politicians are trying to promote renewable resources right now as a means of continuing our current lifestyles. They argue that average citizens shouldn’t have to pay more for gasoline and energy. Very few of our representatives make the argument for conservation and efficiency.

Many of those who actually deny global warming due so in an effort to support the unbridled right of humans to consume as much energy and fuel as they please. Most of these so-called experts also happen to be paid by oil companies. One example is Chris Horner, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (more like the "Idiot's Guide) and counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received over $1.3 from ExxonMobil.

Even if oil companies stand to make billions from the sale of fossil fuels, it is impossible to argue that fossil fuels will last forever.

Fossil fuels, by definition, are non-renewable. We can’t create more fossil fuel, at least not without burying tons of biomass far beneath the earth’s crust and waiting around for hundreds of millions of years.

The undeniable fact is that fossil fuels will run out. And, if we keep gobbling them up like Takeru Kobayashi, we’re going to face a world-wide energy shortage all too soon.

To be continued...

Anti-war Propaganda or Bastion of Truth?

I recently heard this speech concerning a war the United States initiated. Italics are mine.

Some, if not all the gentlemen on, the other side of the House, who have addressed the committee within the last two days, have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago, declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President[James K Polk]. I admit that such a vote should not be given, in mere party wantonness, and that the one given, is justly censurable, if it have no other, or better foundation. I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so under my best impression of the truth of the case. How I got this impression, and how it may possibly be removed, I will now try to show. When the war began, it was my opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the President, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till the war should be ended. Some leading democrats, including Ex President Van Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adhered to it, and acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think I should still adhere to it, were it not that the President and his friends will not allow it to be so.

[Snip]

[O]ne of my colleagues (Mr. Richardson) at a very early day in the session brought in a set of resolutions, expressly endorsing the original justice of the war on the part of the President. Upon these resolutions, when they shall be put on their passage I shall be compelled to vote; so that I can not be silent, if I would. Seeing this, I went about preparing myself to give the vote understandingly when it should come. I carefully examined the President's messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him. Under the impression thus made, I gave the vote before mentioned.

[Snip]

Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this,--issue and evidence--is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.

[Snip]

Let him answer, fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments. Let him remember he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him answer, as Washington would answer. As a nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him attempt no evasion--no equivocation. And if, so answering, he can show that the soil was ours, where the first blood of the war was shed--that it was not within an inhabited country, or, if within such, that the inhabitants had submitted themselves to the civil authority of Texas, or of the United States, and that the same is true of the site of Fort Brown, then I am with him for his justification. In that case I, shall be most happy to reverse the vote I gave the other day. I have a selfish motive for desiring that the President may do this. I expect to give some votes, in connection with the war, which, without his so doing, will be of doubtful propriety in my own judgment, but which will be free from the doubt if he does so. But if he can not, or will not do this--if on any pretence, or no pretence, he shall refuse or omit it, then I shall be fully convinced, of what I more than suspect already, that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrongthat he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him. That originally having some strong motive--what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning--to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy he plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where. How like the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream, is the whole war part of his late message! At one time telling us that Mexico has nothing whatever, that we can get, but territory; at another, showing us how we can support the war, by levying contributions on Mexico.

[Snip]

Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it, no where intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At it's beginning, Genl. Scott was, by this same President, driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes--every department, and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not do,--after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without showing us, that, as to the end, he himself, has, even an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscious, more painful than all his mental perplexity!

In the excised text, he continued by critically analyzing and questioning the evidence given for war. Now, this speech was not given by some ‘Defeatocrat’ or as Rep. Bill Sali of Idaho characterized recent oversight hearings simple “partisan finger pointing,” rather, one of the great statesman of our day: future President, Abraham Lincoln. Although Lincoln delivered this speech on January 12, 1848, the message is just as applicable today as it was when Lincoln gave it – simply insert Iraq for Mexico and Bush for Polk. However, had he read this today, in all likelihood, members of the Republican Party, the same party Lincoln helped establish, would deride him as unpatriotic and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Every day, whether through Congressional hearings, the Scooter Libby trial, or reports from the Inspector General, we learn more and more how the Bush administration manipulated evidence and lied our way into war with Iraq. Hopefully a Lincoln of our day will emerge.

Speech Transript:
Library of Congress (Original)
Reproduced (used in post)

Washington Politics: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good: Democrats announced they would block President Bush’s efforts to cut the budget of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In the 2007 budget proposal, President Bush reduced federal funding for Medicaid and SCHIP by a net of $12 billion in 2006 through 2010 (CBPP). This action directly contradicts President Bush’s promise to fully fund SCHIP at the 2004 Republican National Convention where he said:

America’s children must also have a healthy start in life. In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government’s health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need. (Families USA)

The program, created by the Clinton administration (also the primary focus Sen. Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign thus far), is designed to provide health insurance to low and middle income families that cannot afford private health insurance and do not qualify for Medicaid. As a result of the cuts, the program will lower the income threshold used to determine which kids qualify; thereby, terminating health insurance for hundreds of thousands of children. Furthermore, Gov. Jim Doyle’s recent proposal to increase enrollment in the SCHIP might be threatened (Doyle).

Maybe I should classify this situation as ‘ugly.’ However, Congressional Democrats came to the rescue, vowing to alter the allocation of funds. In a letter to the President, Speak Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader wrote:

[W]e respectfully request that you not forget the millions of low-income Americans who are insured under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). We ask that you submit a separate spending proposal to cover shortfalls in SCHIP for Fiscal Year 2007 which have been estimated to be $745 million…SCHIP has become a vital part of our safety net, providing health care coverage to millions of Americans who otherwise would be uninsured. Including funds to address fully the looming SCHIP shortfall would assure that states can continue to provide this important coverage while we work to address the longer-term success of the program. (Reid)

The Bad: When Democrats regained control of congress, they vowed to enact a 5-day work week in an attempt to improve the image of the previous do nothing Congress which worked a total of 103 days (Washington Post). Although Congress has yet to work a 5-day week – federal holidays (MLK) and the BCS championship game got in the way – some in Congress have already started to complain. Some members of Congress want a full week off for every three weeks of work (No source, reported on February 7, on CNN’s The Situation Room). When asked several months ago about the work habits of Congress, American Enterprise Institute’s Congressional scholar, Norman Ornstein said:

It's not too much to ask Congress to commit to spending at least half the year -- 26 weeks -- working full time, five days a week, thus providing at least a measure of the deliberation and attention to detail that are so lacking now…Congress has a fundamental responsibility to make decent laws and see to it that those laws work well.

He later remarked that the current schedule does not allow that. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)


The Ugly: An agency near and dear to my heart, the Centers for Disease Control, received a 9% budget cut, or $6.9 billion (NYT). Considering the increased potential of bioterrorism, the potential bird flu pandemic, and Indonesia’s recent decision to stop sharing bird flu virus samples with the World Health Organization (Indonesia is usually the epicenter of flu outbreaks, and currently the most virulent strains of the bird flu virus reside there), this cut may be disastrous in the future (Chicago Tribune). The health care foundation, California Healthline, chronicled some of the reductions and increases in the 2007 budget. While the cut to the CDC’s budget is disheartening, especially since I hope to work there some day, President Bush did increase funds for the National Institute of Health (whom I did some research for), the FDA, and abstinence-only education programs – because studies have ubiquitously shown they work. He did ask for $120 million to address a future flu pandemic. However, according to California Healthline, “some public health advocates say the budget provides inadequate funding for disease tracking and response.”

From Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras: Wind Energy

Cross-post: Brudaimonia

From Renewable Energy Access (via BloggerJohn at Daily Kos):

February 7, 2007
Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Potential: 330 GW
by Tracey Bryant

The wind resource off the Mid-Atlantic coast could supply the energy needs of nine states from Massachusetts to North Carolina, plus the District of Columbia -- with enough left over to support a 50 percent increase in future energy demand -- according to a study by researchers at the University of Delaware (UD) and Stanford University.

[snip]

The scientists examined current wind-turbine technologies to determine the depth of the water and the distance from shore the wind turbines could be located. They also defined "exclusion zones" where wind turbines could not be installed, such as major bird flyways, shipping lanes, chemical disposal sites, military restricted areas, borrow sites where sediments are removed for beach renourishment projects, and "visual space" from major tourist beaches.

[snip]

The scientists' estimate of the full-resource, average wind power output of 330 gigawatts over the Middle Atlantic Bight is based on the installation of 166,720 wind turbines, each generating up to 5 megawatts of power. The wind turbines would be located at varying distances from shore, out to 100 meters of water depth, over an ocean area spanning more than 50,000 square miles, from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras.

In comparison to the oil and natural gas resources of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf -- the submerged land that lies seaward from 3 miles offshore and is under federal jurisdiction -- the researchers found that the shelf's reported energy sources would amount to only one-tenth of the wind resource and would be exhausted in 20 years.

Currently, the US gets about 6% of our energy from renewable sources. Almost all of this 6% comes from hydroelectric power and biomass, two somewhat controversial renewable energy sources. Wind power still accounts for only 0.14% of our total energy. Solar energy accounts for even less: 0.063%. (Remember, this is total energy, not just electricity generation.)

However, wind is the second largest growing energy source in the US, behind, unfortunately, natural gas. The investment wheel is starting to turn for wind energy, but it needs to speed up. With the finding described in the fourth paragraph excerpted above, on relative energy potential of oil and gas versus wind, this study challenges the assumption that fossil fuels are the rule and renewables are the exception. On the contrary, by definition, nonrenewable resources are burned up and become the exception, whereas renewable resources become the rule, by definition.

This study should be a huge eye-opener for the American public and those in the halls of Congress. It should be a huge eye-opener for those who have some vague skepticism which says that renewable energy cannot play more than a minor role in supplying our nation's energy demand. It should be a huge eye-opener for those that stubbornly maintain that nuclear power is the only way out of our energy and global warming crises. It is time to accept that renewable energy plus efficiency plus conservation can carry us into a sustainable future. It has always just been a matter of will.

Addendum to AEI and ExxonMobil Reporting

In addition to ExxonMobil underwriting global climate change confusion, the United States government continues to obfuscate the issue. Recently, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project investigated federal climate science by questioning 1,600 climate scientists at several federal and non-federal agencies.

Together, they found that “political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic.” Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program continued, “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.” The UCS survey also found:

Nearly half of all respondents (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words "climate change," "global warming," or other similar terms from a variety of communications. Forty-three percent of respondents reported they had perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their scientific findings. UCS

Rep. Henry Waxman confronted this exact problem January 30th. In front of the Congressional Oversight and Government Reform Committee NASA scientist, Dr. Drew T. Shindell testified to the fact that the government often interfered with his work. He stated:

While it was frustrating for me to see my work suppressed, even more importantly it is a disservice to the public to distort or suppress the information needed for decision-making. But that experience is only one example of a series of actions that attempted to suppress communication of climate science to the public. Also during the fall of 2004, NASA Headquarters insisted that a NASA press officer monitor all interviews either in person or on the phone, a measure unbefitting a democratic society. Some scientists were told their scientific presentations had to be cleared by NASA in advance. Oversight Committee Hearing

If this is not enough, in his most recent budget proposal, President Bush has cut funding of the Environmental Protection Agency by about 4% from $7.6 billion in 2006 to $7.3 billion in 2007. As much as the Bush administration attempts to suppress the truth, one way or another, it will come out.


Sources:
UCS
Oversight Committee Hearing
EPA Budget

What is responsibility when it comes to government spending?

Cross-posted at The New Vernacular

Politicians in America keep saying that we need to turn ideas into action if we want to keep this country great. They say we need to beef up security if we want to keep our families safe. According to them, Liberals think that money grows on trees in the yards of taxpayers.

Well, it's possible that the taxpayer dollars used to pay for the Iraq War, estimated to be over $1 trillion dollars, could have really made an impact if they were put to a different use.

Per John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University and graduate of the University of Wisconsin, $1 trillion could easily allow the EPA to clean up every environmental superfund site in the U.S. and then some. It could fund the Department of Education 18 times over and surely, "put muscle into the slogan "No child left behind." It could multiply our scientific research hundreds of times and put us years ahead in energy advances to cure our dependency on foreign oil and cure life-threatening diseases. It could secure nearly every port and chemical plant. It could even save the lives of million of children across the world dying of what to us are common, treatable illnesses.

Strangely, it seems that it would be almost impossible to convince Congress that any of these endeavors would be a strong investment.

ABC News: Who's counting: How Iraq's trillion could have been spent

AEI offers scientists $10,000 to disagree with global warming report

The American Enterprise Institute, an "ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration," has offering $10,000 to any scientist or economist who publicly undermines report on global warming from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC report says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

It seems as though the oil companies will do just about anything to deny

It's ridiculous for corporations, politicians, and pundits to continually deny global warming just because they don't agree with it or the ramifications it will have on the way the do business.

Guardian Unlimited: Scientists offered cast to dispute climate study
BBC: Humans blamed for climate change

(Just to give you an idea of the AEI's stances on other issues, they just released a book titled "The Wal-Mart Revolution: How Big-Box Stores Benefit Consumers, Workers, and the Economy)

Ignignokt Should Super Size it for Boston

In a recent media stunt gone array, Boston officials detonated a suspicious package and temporarily closed the Charles River. Despite early media reports claiming some nefarious character, potentially a terrorist, planted bombs, Turner Broadcasting assumed responsibility for the guerrilla marketing ad campaign promoting their Adult Swim show Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley stated, “It had a very sinister appearance. It had a battery behind it, and wires.”

In a written apology, Senior Vice President Shirley Powell described the ads: “The ''packages'' in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger…They have been in place for two to three weeks in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, and Philadelphia.”

Despite the apology, Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis called the campaign “unconscionable” in a post 9/11 era. “It's a foolish prank on the part of Turner Broadcasting,” he said. “In the environment nowadays ... we really have to look at the motivation of the company here and why this happened.” CNN

This begs the question, in a post 9/11 era, why did it take so long for the authorities to discover these suspicious and sinister packages? Boston, the only city that acted, needed between two and three weeks to discover them. If terrorists actually planted bombs across the greater Boston area, would they give the police several weeks to look for them before their detonation?

Second, despite the fact that these packages resembled improvised explosive devices, early in the day, police Lieutenant Salvatore Venturelli made it clear they were not bombs (Boston Globe). Why the need for such drastic actions and fear mongering? According to CNN:

The discovery of the light boards led state, local and federal authorities to
close the Boston University and Longfellow Bridges and block boat traffic from
the Charles River to Boston Harbor. In addition, the Pentagon said U.S. Northern
Command was monitoring the situation from its headquarters in Colorado Springs,
Colorado, but said none of its units were dispatched to assist.

It took almost 8 hours after first spotting the packages for authorities to hold a press conference to quell public fear. Terrorists no longer need to do anything to paralyze a city, the media can do it for them.

*Thank you Mr. Procknow for the title idea