Climate Change: The Politics of Science

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Speaking to a friendly group from the Society of Environmental Journalists in a land fit for polar bears (Wisconsin), the former U.S. vice president, Al Gore, tussled with Irish journalist, Phelim McAleer, regarding the inaccuracies cited by a UK panel in his political film, An Inconvenient Truth.

Suffice to say, Gore would have been well-served to respond openly to McAleer's question--to say either he disagreed with the UK's findings or concede that at the time of the film's production--that he relied on the best scientific information available.

Instead, Gore's non-answer plucked credibility from the cause he vows to support. Gore places himself in the company of other politicians who find the truth inconvenient, who find tough questions from the media unpalatable, and in doing so, he loses the stature to claim the moral high ground.

The politics of this debate is easy to understand. The Senate bill on carbon emissions that Gore hopes to see signed this year weighs in the balance. And his defense of every aspect of his film is a cede-no-ground mentality in his public campaign. We get that.

Throughout the centuries, developments in science have clashed with influential leaders and the prevailing wisdom of the day. Copernicus. Galileo. Einstein. Countless others. Nonetheless, the desire to understand and explain the movement of the planets, the anatomy of the human body or the theory of relativity--rested on a lofty notion--the pursuit of truth.

Gore's weakness in clinging to untruths shows a rigidness of character and intellect that haunted him during his tenure in the White House. His willingness to stand on a platform for carbon emissions and conservation in public that he does not support in his own practices at home further exposes a lack in moral leadership.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported that Gore's home consumes more electricity each month than the average home does in one year. (After public pressure Gore did apply for permits to install solar panels in his Nashville home.)

Even so, a $3,000/month electric bill belies an insatiable appetite for energy consumption--and flies in the face of others who ride their bikes to work, buy hybrid vehicles, unplug appliances when not in use and make countless other creative sacrifices each day.

I'm pleased to contribute to open and honest dialogue on climate change for Blog Action Day and welcome your comments. Blog Action Day is an annual event that unites the world’s bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day on their own blogs with the aim of sparking discussion around an issue of global importance.

Card Check Bill Epitomizes Hubris of New Administration

It has often been said that companies get the unions they deserve. Anyone who has studied the rise of unions in this country or has read Upton Sinclair's, The Jungle, depicting the corruption, greed and exploitation of workers in the meat-packing industry in Chicago knows the origins of unions in America emanated from a lofty idealism--to protect workers from mistreatment and intimidation.  

Back in the day, union dues supported a social and political movement to effect change in an industrial system that was stacked against the individual.

Spend some time today in the operations of major manufacturing and service industries with line workers or their non-union supervisors.  U.S. autoworkers trust neither the union or their corporate leaders. They will tell you that the unions have taken on a spirit and life of their own that serve to perpetuate and sustain American unions, not American workers.  By allowing the unions to speak for them, American workers have forfeited the right to speak for themselves. 

Union politics is complicated. Local unions are the foot soldiers for the national organization. For unions like the UAW, they also span multiple auto manufacturers and suppliers, so that one company's representation is no longer linked to the best concerns of its workers, but to a national agenda more confusing than the idea of new conservatism.

Still, the allure of unionized workforce attracts the attention of so many working Americans--in part because the unions have understood how to tell stories that depict their cause as a righteous one.  

The proposed card check bill, cleverly named the Employee Free Choice Act, enables unions to target and harass workers to sign union cards more vehemently and more personally than a collection agent calling your home day and night.

The potential for intimidation already exists under the rules for secret or private ballot votes for union organizing, but the National Labor Relations Board has rules against it and punishment and reinforcement for violation of organizing rules. 

Under the card check bill, a union can approach employees away from the workplace, at home, in the community, at the store and even at church. It can spend months working under the radar to ask workers to sign a union card. The irony of this organizing approach for solidarity is that workers can be hunted down and picked off by separating them from the herd.

Unions like the rest of us are facing a cash crunch.  A steady habit of supporting political campaigns and D.C. based lobbying efforts is costly.  And as more and more workers fail to understand the relevance of today's unions, membership is steadily declining.  The proposal on the table to abolish secret ballots for unionization is a silver bullet to foist union membership on workers and fill union coffers with the dues to keep the machine running.

Politicians, and even Presidents, have a vested interest in the passage of this bill. President Obama--who received $27 million alone from The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for his presidential campaign--was co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act and has vowed to sign the bill when it crosses his desk. 

What do you think?

WHAT IF ELIOT SPITZER RAN THE IRS?

With all due respect to the Good People of the State of New York, I have to ask a serious question.

What if Eliot Spitzer ran the IRS?

If Spitzer ran the IRS, every member of Congress would not just be audited quarterly, they would be on double-secret probation for life.

If Spitzer ran the IRS, new Presidents would be assured that any "vetting" of administration nominees would be totally unnecessary.

If Spitzer ran the IRS, U.S. taxpayers would see a new perk added to the list of goodies that our enlightened elected leaders receive.  Small-group seminars and tax-planning sessions from TurboTax to all members of Congress.

If Spitzer ran the IRS, ethics violations would INCLUDE financial oversights, gee I forgot to pay that lien, my nanny never told me she was from San Salvador and I didn't know the car and driver were taxable offenses.

If Spitzer ran the IRS, the Treasury would be focused on getting the fat cats, the big fish and the top Kahunas, not us regular folks.

And finally, if Spitzer ran the IRS, "entertainment" taxes would be loosened. So to speak.

And who better to "follow the money" than our guy Eliot?

Let me know what you think. 

Help for Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

President Obama's misguided visit to the White House press room Thursday evening reinforced to many of us just how protected Obama has been from the simple realities of working with the press. "Ahh, see,"  he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens.  I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here." EVERY time I come down here. Well, I guess that ends the party.  

Even the writers and producers of The West Wing knew better than to let the President go slumming in the press corps bull pen... 

My favorite undermining quote of the day:  Obama said he watched his trusted press secretary, Gibbs during his first briefing "in anticipation of some flop sweat.... I just want to thank you for not completely ripping up Gibbs," Obama said. "I'm very proud of him today." Journalists, in my experience, don't like to be thanked for taking it easy on any spokesperson, never mind the White House press secretary.  Their editors usually get a little fussy about such things.

Let me know what you think. Join the conversation.

What's Obama's Rush on Gitmo?

President Obama took the opportunity during his first week in office to make a pledge to close Gitmo in one year--no doubt seeking to mark his first 100 days in office with evidence of Real Change.  What is questionable is how little will change with Obama's public decree to close Gitmo.  Journalists willing to avoid the tough questions will take the photo opp as the story.  A  bold first move. Righteousness and honor.  Except Obama gets the benefit of vowing to close Gitmo, without liberating anyone wrongly detained and without addressing our government's practice of using foreign real estate to interrogate and isolate potential threats from our peace at home.

What Obama has yet to do is denounce the governmental constructs and beliefs that have led to the creation of secret American prisons abroad. Abu Ghraib. Bagram, Afghanistan. Others that you and I may never know of. 

In his attempt to stage the first run of Real Change this week, Obama has confused his priorities on human rights and civil liberties with the idea of "liberty and justice for all."  A muddled sensibility is not what is needed as the world watches our President's response to threats of terrorism and national security.  

It is pure naivete and poor counsel from Obama's staff to ask him to place pen in hand and pose for photos--with so little change from the Bush administration's policies.  Decisive minds would have opened the gates of Gitmo and airlifted the 300 detainees by military aircraft to selected points around the world to complete their travels on commercial airlines, courtesy of the U.S.  

The act of keeping them imprisoned and halting military tribunals will only serve to extend their feelings of mistreatment at the hands of the U.S. and one may expect, fuel feelings of retribution.