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

Tens of millions in U.S. reconstruction aid wasted in Iraq; GOP tried to shut down temporary agency conducting audit

Crossposted at The New Vernacular

It hasn’t made the front page of U.S. media outlets, but the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) just came out with a report claiming that “Millions of dollars in US rebuilding funds have been wasted in Iraq.” BBC

The report is coming out just as President Bush is asking Congress for Congress to approve $1.2 billion in additional reconstruction aid.

The BBC cites a couple of examples of waste or funds that have gone unaccounted for:

One case involved a payment by the US State Department of $43.8m to a contractor, DynCorp International, for a residential camp for police trainers outside the Adnan Palace grounds in Baghdad. The camp has never been used.

The Iraqi Interior Ministry ordered $4.2m of work there, never authorised by the State Department, that included 20 trailers for important visitors and an Olympic-size swimming pool.

The State Department has said that it is working to improve controls.

Another example cited in the report is $36.4m spent by US officials on armoured vehicles, body armour and communications equipment that cannot be accounted for because invoices were vague and there was no back-up documentation.

On top of millions of dollars in reconstruction aid going unaccounted for, “billions of dollars budgeted for capital projects remained unspent at the end of 2006.” BBC

Democrats have picked up on the report and, “In the House, at least two committees said they planned hearings to examine spending waste and abuse.” NYT

As for the effectiveness of the money the U.S. has spent so far on reconstruction, Special General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen said yesterday that, “billions in U.S. aid spent on strengthening security has had limited effect. He said reconstruction now will fall largely on Iraqis to manage -- and they're not ready for the task.” NYT

Even before the latest reports on U.S. spending in Iraq came out, SIGIR, “was nearly closed down last year by Republicans.” BBC

In November 2006, Republicans in the House Armed Service Committee buried a clause calling for the termination of SIGIR in a massive military appropriations bill.

In the past, the SIGIR investigations “have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.” NYT

The clause was placed in the bill during a closed-door conference. There’s no denying that the elimination of SIGIR was intended to go under the radar. “The one thing I can confirm is that this was a last-minute insertion,” said Susan Collins (R-ME). NYT

With Democrats in control of Congress, the office will continue oversight of the war at least through 2008.

In case you’re wondering, Stuart Bowen isn’t some liberal watchdog bent on ruining the reputation of the Bush Administration. Before he served as Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction, Mr. Bowen, “served President George W. Bush as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Staff Secretary and Special Assistant to the President and Associate Counsel. He has been a partner at the law firm of Patton Boggs LLP, in its Washington, D.C. office. Before his White House tenure, Mr. Bowen served as Counsel to the Bush-Cheney transition team; and from 1994 to 2000, he held a variety of positions on Governor George Bush's staff in Texas, including Deputy General Counsel, Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, and Assistant General Counsel.” Wikipedia

Journalist Ed Harriman has been following the American audits of spending in Iraq and gave some insight on the current situation in an interview yesterday with BBC World Today Select:

BBC: Do you have a sense that the current Iraqi administration is better at keeping an eye on this type of thing than it’s predecessors?

Harriman: Oh no, not at all. And people are very distraught in Iraq at the moment because the government has become almost entirely unaccountable. What’s really interesting is that the American embassy in Baghdad seems to be unaccountable as well. And that’s after almost four years of the occupation...

BBC: Is it possible to calculate finally how much money is missing, one way or another?

Harriman: There are guesstimates because you never really get to the end of it because crooks are very good at hiding what they steal. But, we’re certainly talking about tens of billions of dollars.

Harriman’s findings have been published in a series of three articles in the London Review of Books:

Where has all the money gone? – 7.7.05

Cronyism and Kickbacks - 1.26.2006

The Least Accountable Regime in the Middle East – 2.7.2006

Sources:

BBC: U.S. money is ‘squandered’ in Iraq

BBC: World Today Select Podcast

NYT: Dems decry report of wasted Iraq aid

Dumb Story of the Day

On CNN.com today:

Tyra fat?
Are we going overboard with the controversy surrounding Tyra Banks' weight?

Answer: Yes

A Look Down the Barrel of the Global Warming Gun

Cross-posts: Daily Kos; Brudaimonia

As many who follow global warming know, Bangladesh is one of the countries most vulnerable to the potential meteorological consequences of global warming. There are several good reasons why, which I detail below.

This diary serves to give a detailed profile of Bangladesh and what might happen if some of the events projected by climatologists due to global warming come true. Having spent a month in Bangladesh a few years ago, having experienced the genuine kindness and hospitality of many Bangladeshis, and having several friends there now, global warming's threat to the country is somewhat personal for me.

Three major rivers -- the Ganges (known locally as the Padma), the Jamuna, and the Meghna -- course through Bangladesh before emptying into the Bay of Bengal. Composed of, for the most part, the collective delta of these three rivers, the country's terrain (with small highland exceptions in the north and in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in the southeast panhandle) is mostly flat alluvial plain (i.e. low and wet). It has one of the lowest average elevations of any country. (Elevation map)

These geographical conditions place Bangladesh on the edge of the cliff. If the climate model results reported in the New Scientist in 2003 come even close to being true, the land will be pushed over the edge:

Flooding in the country is set to increase by up to 40 per cent this century as global temperatures rise, the latest climate models suggest.

[snip]

...heavier rainfall triggered by global warming will swamp Bangladesh's riverbanks, a previously unforeseen effect, flooding between 20 and 40 per cent more land than today, says Monirul Qader Mirza, a Bangladeshi water resources expert now at the Adaptation and Impacts Research Group at the University of Toronto.

...People can grow crops on land regularly fertilised by nutrient-laden silt from the rivers [see photo below]. But extreme floods cause considerable hardship and loss of life: in 1988 and 1998 over two-thirds of the country was under water at some point.

Granted, the 40 percent figure is the worst case scenario, but even

[i]f temperatures rose by just 2 °C, two of the models showed that the mean flow of the Meghna and Brahmaputra rivers would increase by 20 per cent. (New Scientist Article)

What will it take to give ourselves a good chance of (but not ensure) avoiding a 2 °C raise and increase the likelihood of sparing Bangladeshis great hardship? According to this seminal article by George Monbiot (related to his new book), it will take a 60% global reduction of greenhouse gases, a 90% average cut by rich countries, and a 94% cut by the U.S by 2030. If this reasoning is even close to the mark, things look really bad for Bangladesh.

The threat to Bangladeshis of a sea-level rise and increased river flooding is exacerbated by its population density, the highest in the world of any sizable country. Imagine half the US population living in Iowa; that's Bangladesh's population density.

When I visited, it was not the monsoon season, when one-third of the country is under water (CIA World Factbook). But even in the dry season, the amount of land available for farming can be scarce in some areas.


(Bru)

This is a view from the Bangabandhu Jamuna Bridge, a massive and modern bridge named after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh's founding father. (His nickname was "Bangabandhu," or "Friend of Bengal" in Bengali.) The small dots near the sand chars in the middle of the river are farmers in boats. This is a telling example of the shortage of land in Bangladesh: farmers take advantage of any piece of arable land they can get, even if it bears a high risk of flooding and destroying their crops.

A significant rise in sea level may tighten the land crunch beyond repair. According to my Lonely Planet book, "A 1m rise in the Bay of Bengal would result in a loss of 12% to 18% of the country's land" (p. 35).


(Rice nurseries near water's edge - Bru)

Another threat of rising sea levels is infiltration of salt water in fresh water bodies and aquifers. This is especially troubling in a region where half of the tubewells are already contaminated with arsenic.

Already Bangladesh is experiencing an increase in urbanization as the rural poor and environmental refugees flock to Dhaka and other large cities.

Masuma's home is a bamboo and polythene shack in one of the hundreds of slums colonising every square metre of unbuilt land in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh.

Masuma is an environmental refugee, fleeing from the floods which have always beset her homeland but which are predicted to strike more severely with climate change.

A third of Dhaka's population lives in slums (Source). While there, I learned that future increases in the city's slum population will help make it the world's second-most populous city by 2020.


(Bru)

The grey roofs you see in the foreground all make up one large slum. You can see how it stretches to the edges of the lake, even if the ground doesn't provide a solid foundation. If the migration into Dhaka increases according to projections, where will all these new people live? What will they eat and what water will they drink? These are huge problems that Bangladesh would have to deal with no matter what happens to the earth's climate, but global warming threatens to make them much worse.

Bangladeshis are used to flooding and natural disasters. Besides the normal monsoon flooding every year, they have been hit on occasion by excpetionally bad floods. This happened in 1999, 2002, and 2003 , to name just three recent years. In 1991, a cyclone killed over 130,000 people. In 1970, the Bhola cyclone killed at least 500,000 people, the deadliest tropical cyclone of all time.

In the wake of all these disasters, Bangladesh has improved its response system and disaster planning. But no amount of planning may prepare them for the potential consequences, and ripple effects, of a significant average global temperature rise.

I have been reading parts of Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac lately, and have been marveling at how ahead of its time it is, given that it was published in 1949. In "The Land Ethic," Leopold argues that our ethical systems must evolve to take into account the entire community of life, not just other individuals or human society in general.

In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.

For global warming, we have to fight our subconscious tendency to only pay attention to localized problems, and consider the effect on the global community. We have to treat a threat to people halfway around the world as a threat to our neighbor or ourselves, because that's what we would want people halfway around the world to do if the threat was to us or our neighbor, especially if we knew that our actions influenced this threat.

We don't have to wait for the government to do anything. We don't have to wait for CAFE standards to be raised or for Wal-Mart to sell a bunch of CFLs. We don't have to wait for utilities to add more renewable energy. We can adopt (or cultivate) our own Land Ethic, within ourselves. And if enough of us do this, we might find that we have saved Bangladesh -- not to mention Ethiopia or New Orleans -- from the worst global warming consequences.

Medicare Plan D reform

This past Friday, the US House of Representative approved a bill requiring the government to negotiate with drug companies over the cost of price of medicines for Medicare users. However, according to Tony Snow, “If this bill is presented to the President, he will veto it” and, “We have a Medicare prescription drug reform that has been saving people significant amounts of money; it is effective.” Presumably then, this bill does not save Americans more money than the previous Medicare drug plan. If precedent is any indicator of the future, we should actually expect decreases in the cost of medicine. A survey released on December 21, 2005 by Families USA found the opposite true of Tony Snow’s statement.

A survey released today found that drug prices under the new Medicare drug
program will be considerably higher than the prices negotiated by the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA). According to the survey, the median price difference
for the 20 drugs most frequently used by seniors is 48.2 percent. (Families
USA)

The survey systematically compared the price the VA pays, which negotiates with the pharmaceutical industry, for its drugs and price Medicare participants pay. Not surprisingly, “The survey found that the lowest VA price is much lower than the lowest Medicare prescription drug plan (PDP) price for 19 of the top 20 drugs” and “For half of the top 20 drugs, the lowest Medicare prescription drug plan price is at least one and one-half times higher than the lowest VA price.” Specifically, the cholesterol lowering agent, Zocor costs the VA $167.80 per year of usage; whereas Medicare pays $1,323.72. A difference of $1,155.92! A more detailed look at the drug prices can be found here.

However, opponents of the bill contend, as David Hogberg of the National Policy Analysis and a blogger at USA Today has, that this bill amounts to nothing more than price control. However, the bill simply dictates that the government must negotiate lower prices, not necessarily obtain or force unnaturally low prices. Hogberg also believes this bill will in fact raise drug prices. Following the trend of the VA, it seems logical that if the government, the largest single buyer of medicine with the greatest purchasing power in the world, negotiates en masse, the government will obtain at the very least the same prices, if not lower prices, for medications.

Opponents also argue that by decreasing the cost of the drugs, innovation will decrease markedly because of a lack of funds for research and development. Currently, R&D constitutes between 10-15% of the budget on average (CPT). Furthermore, according to author Marcia Angell, “In 2002, the top 10 American [pharmaceutical] companies in the Fortune 500 made 17 percent of their sales in profits, whereas they spent only 14 percent on R&D” and “they spend two to two-and-a-half times as much on what they call “marketing and administration” (Mother Jones). Only one pharmaceutical company, when filing with the SEC differentiated between marketing and administration costs: Novartis spent a staggering 36 percent of its revenues on marketing alone (Science Week). It seems the only thing that would suffer is the onslaught of Cialis and Viagra ads, not research. Even the amount spent on R&D is misleading. Angell stated:

Well, no one knows for sure what goes into the R&D budget, because the
companies aren’t telling. It’s been estimated that about a quarter of it is
spent on Phase IV clinical trials, many of which are just excuses to pay doctors
to prescribe the drug. They don’t yield any real scientific information. But no
one knows for sure.

This does not even factor publicly funded research conducted at universities and the National Institute of Health, where the drug companies obtain many of their promising leads.

Currently, in the World Health Organization’s rankings of health care systems, the United States, despite spending the most on health care, ranks for 37th, just behind Costa Rica and ahead of Slovenia. France, with a more progressive and socialized health system, ranks first. While this bill will not vault us to the top, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Medicare wants the best drugs at an affordable price. It is not in Medicare’s interest to negotiate a price the only reduces quality of care – eventually Medicare would have to pay for that increase. Rather, this bill aspires to obtain an honest price for premier medical care.

Re-writing history

While listening to the radio today (that's all I do with my job), I heard several radio show hosts comment on the speech given last night by President Bush. Of the coming year in Iraq he stated: "Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue -- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html). Several hosts commented on this portion of the speech and said the media would over-emphasize this point - just more of the liberal media distorting facts again. According to Madison talk show host Vicki McKenna, the Bush administration stated from the beginning that we should expect a bloody, difficult and protracted struggle. Let's look back at some of their comments:

In the lead up to the war, March 16 2003
MR. RUSSERT: do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties? [emphasis my own]

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators...The read we get on the people of Iraq is there’s no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/)
----He does not seem to think the upcoming war will be difficult or bloody

20 June 2005
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/)
----The oposition seems to be ending, again, very rosey on the prospects of a short conflict

19 June 2006
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: I guess if I look back on it now, I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060619-10.html)
----If they stated all along that this would be a proctracted struggle, then he would have anticipated the level of violence

14 November 2002
SSEC'Y DONALD RUMSFELD: I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. And, it won't be a World War III. (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t11152002_t1114rum.html)
----Again, not a long war

07 February 2003
SSEC'Y DONALD RUMSFELD: And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. [emphasis my own] (http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=1900)
----I do not think I need to editorialize this comments any further

20 February 2003
JIM LEHRER: Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?
SSEC'Y DONALD RUMSFELD: There's no question but that they would be welcomed. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/rumsfeld_2-20.html)

This does not include the incredible lies regarding the cost of the war ('The oil revenues would pay for the war itself' HA!). Looking at the comments above, Iraq should have resolved itself by now. Alas, it has not.

McBride Media Watch

I just had the fortune, or misfortune if you will, to listen to amateur hour on 620 WTMJ radio. Actually, it was the Jessica McBride show, but it is understandable why one might confuse her show with open mic night. The topic of the show concerned the recent news of Saddam Hussein’s execution. This inexorably devolved into a discussion on the Iraq war, and led me to believe WTMJ held a radio host audition tonight.

According to her profile, Mrs. McBride “comes to WTMJ with strong credentials” and “[s]he won national awards for her investigative reporting.” However, she failed to do anything beyond superficial investigating this evening and proved she lacks nuanced thought and reasoning. When a caller stated that the United States propped up Mr. Hussein and helped create the conditions in Iraq, she responded by asking: “Do you hate America.” Take a second to follow her ‘linear though’ as she put it. Mrs. McBride, along with countless other conservative talk show hosts, simply fails to realize that questioning America and hating America are two very different things. Furthermore, the simple fact remains that America is not blameless. Despite what some conservative pundits may say, America’s actions and foreign policy has consequences or blowback, and not all of it is positive. Rather than taking the pedestrian view that al-Qaeda attacked us because they hate our freedom and democracy, we need a broader examination into the rationale behind the attacks. A cursory example of this sort of scholarship would include a reading of Ahmed Rashid’s Taliban, which examines the effects of the United States encouraging jihadists to flood into Afghanistan in support of the Mujahideen’s war against Soviet Russia. Rashid believes this concentration of miscreants and nefarious outlaws created a veritable powder keg in Afghanistan just waiting to explode. While the US foreign policy is not a sufficient explanation for terrorists’ attacks, it is a necessary condition. Furthermore, to argue otherwise is simply ignorant and short-sighted.

Second, when confronted with the appropriateness of the war, Mrs. McBride, not like many of her cohorts retorts: “Democrats and liberals alike supported and voted for the war.” While I cannot argue with the validity of this statement (John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, et al), she nonetheless deceived her audience. It is tantamount to me saying Charles Lindbergh believed Hitler was a hero, because at one point he supported the Nazi Party. It also is not simply an issue of hindsight being 20/20. Just as the Nazi’s distorted lied about many of their intentions in the 20s and early 30s, the Bush administration lied and distorted the truth regarding the situation in Iraq. The real hindsight gained is to not trust the Bush administration. Had the democrats received accurate facts regarding the likelihood of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and still authorized the use of force, then hindsight would be appropriate to describe their current misgivings of this conflagration. However, Congress never received an actual assessment of Iraq’s danger to the United States. When Secretary of the Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of the State Colin Powell tell Congress and the American public the specific locations of the weapons, it is easy to understand why some Democrats were hoodwinked into supporting the war. Mr. Rumsfeld: “We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat (March 30, 2003).” And again on September 18, 2002 before congress, “[Saddam] has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons.” And, “There is no question but that they would be welcomed," Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/rumsfeld_2-20.html). "Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do.” Finally, the most horrendous lie. President Bush: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html). To say Democrats supported the war is true, but only half of the story. They supported the war based on lies and deliberate distortions. While they should have done their due diligence, Mrs. McBride and others of her ilk are unfair and deceitful when they state that even democrats supported the war.

Mrs. McBride, I think you should stop teaching journalism, and return to school to take some classes of your own. Then again, isn’t there an old phrase, ‘those who can’t, teach.’ Maybe I’m just expecting too much from her.