Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal, which seems to have morphed into Rubert Murdoch's effort to recreate Fox News in print, ran what Ed Kilgore calls the "climate-change deniers' greatest-hits edition":
In these turgid lines can be found a treasure trove of prevarications. You've got your impressive-sounding list of scientists agreeing with the Journal (with no corresponding list of those who disagree; the newsprint or bandwith necessary to publish those would bankrupt even the WSJ). You've got your quote marks around the term global warming. You've got your allusions to the silly "Climategate" kerfuffle. And you've got your unsubstantiated allegations of "persecution" of the brave "heretics" who dare stand with poor, puny Industry against the awesome power of academics.
Well and good. Most of us know where the editorial page at the WSJ is coming from. For those who don't, who think that this contrived tripe means that scientists are really "uncertain" about human caused climate change, a couple of articles in yesterday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch suggest that they'll be in for a rude awakening sometime over the next couple of decades.
The first article in the Post-Dispatch confirms the impression of many of locals that the St. Louis area really has been getting warmer. The USDA has kicked the region up a notch on its planting zone map. While the article describes this change as positive - gardeners can now overwinter more delicate subtropical plants - it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there could also be negative implications for traditional crops as well as for crop pests that can thrive when winters are warmer, especially if this is only the beginning of a warming trend.
The second article notes that the on-going drought in the Southwest is one of the reasons for rising beef prices. Many climate scientists believe that such droughts, which have afflicted the area since 2001, will become the norm over time as warming accelerates.
These two casual pieces of reporting should not only concern those lulled into complacency by climate denialism, but those as well who acknowledge that warming is taking place, but think it is too expensive to do what is necessary to mitigate its effects. For instance, on the topic of drought, scientists warn that:
... climate warming will exacerbate water sustainability problems, the Southwest is likely to experience some of the highest economic expenses and environmental losses.
Nor are the risks of drought confined to the Southwest. Many climate-change models predict that as many as 87% of Missouri's counties "will face higher risks of water shortages by mid-century as the result of climate change." The new USDA map is one of the first indications that the process of warming is underway.
Senator Claire McCaskill often claims that she opposes meaningful efforts to control carbon emissions because of the it might increase energy costs and stress economically challenged Missouri families. Politicians like Blaine Luetkemeyer work hard to keep farmers worried over probably baseless threats that controlling carbon emissions will increase costs. No Missouri politicians seem to be worried about just how expensive doing nothing could very well be.
Even if dire claims about increased expense that will follow from effort to mitigate carbon emissions aren't, at the very least, highly exaggerated, they still represent short-term thinking in the face of a long-term march to disaster. I hope that the same Missouri families and farmers remember who misled them when they have to pony up to deal with the far more expensive problems attendant upon escalating climate change.
*Inadvertently omitted text restored to first sentence of last paragraph.
Remember Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the infamous Koch founded and funded organization that, among other achievements, got the Tea Party organized and on track? Want to know just which legislators in Missouri are most in tune with AFP goals? Well, you need wait no longer. The AFP has just issued a scorecard for the 112th Congress. The grades received by Missouri legislators, listed below (name, party and grade), is about what one would expect:
Roy Blunt (R): B
Claire McCaskill (D): D
Todd Akin (R): A+
Russ Carnahan (D): F
Wm. Lacy Clay (D): F
Emanuel Cleaver (D): D-
Jo Ann Emerson (R) B
Sam Graves (R): B
Vicky Hartzler (R): B
Billy Long (R): B
Blaine Leutkemeyer (R): B
If you want a vote breakdown, check out AmericansforProsperity.org/Scorcard. According to the DailyKos' Meteor Blades:
AFP chose to grade congressmembers based on their votes on repealing President Obama's new healthcare law, blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, supporting the demolition document known as the Paul Ryan budget, ending ethanol subsidies and several Congressional Review Act resolutions as well as the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bills.
This rationale explains just why Republicans get high marks and Democrats get low marks - as a progressive, I'd be very disturbed if any Democrats scored higher than they did. That said, I do have to admit that I was surprised that most of Missouri's GOP legislators can't get better than B grades - only uber-winger Akin qualifies for an A grade (A+ actually). They sure talk a good game and one would have expected that they would reap a bigger reward. Perhaps ethanol subsides plays a role in their scores? Also of interest is the fact that no matter how far right she tries to list, poor Claire McCaskill can't do better than a D. I would have pegged her at C- (for centrist wannabe) myself - if only because of her efforts on behalf of Big Coal.
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit informational calls to mobile telephone numbers, and for other purposes.
In other words, this bill would permit businesses to send spam robo-calls about their products to your cell phone, using the minutes you pay for.
It's been illegal for telemarketers to initiate contact via cellphones since the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991. H.R. 3035 attempts to circumvent TCPA provisions by specifying that businesses can phone (or robo-call) your cell phone "for informational purposes" as long as the call does not "constitute a telephone solicitation." If this bill were to pass, you could end up paying for minutes that some random stockbroker , say, might use to "inform" you a few thousand people, via a recorded message, about a new offering (without, of course, specifically soliciting a purchase).*
The folks pushing this bill, which includes entities like the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contend that the probibition on the use of cell phones enacted by the TCPA is outdated because
Congress intended this restriction to protect consumers against the then-daunting per-minute costs and privacy concerns associated with unsolicited incoming calls from telemarketers. But this restriction applies equally to informational calls. In addition, most wireless consumers are now covered by flat-rate plans, and even for those who are not, technological advances and increased competition have greatly reduced per-minute charges.
Hunh? Do you want to waste your minutes on mechanized telephone spam? Do you just love the idea getting dozens of robo-calls daily? If you do, fine. But if you don't, let your congress person know that fact. Make some noise so that folks will know that if they vote for this they'll generate enough ruckus to more than outmatch the "good will" that they will earn from businesses eager to use our phone billing plans for their own ends. For what it's worth, MoveOn.org also has a petition you can sign.
Finally, for those of you who can't figure out what this does for anyone besides the 1%, if you live in the ninth congressional district, maybe you should let Rep. Luetkemeyer know that you don't appreciate being sold out. Or, even if you don't live there, if you know someone who does, maybe you could let them know what their representative is plotting. I wonder how many of his constituents actually know what he's up to when he isn't busy trying to thwart those damned climate scientists and their pesky theories about global warming?
Take a look at the video of Elizabeth Warren talking about taxes that Michael Bersin posted today if you want to understand why the Buffet rule involves the issue of fairness. Then consider the following fact about anti-tax crusaders Vicky Hartzler, Sam Graves, Blaine Luetkemeyer and Billy Long:
Just a few of the small-minded, mean-minded and very wealthy Missourians who are busy working middle class Missourians over. As for the case that Elizabeth Warren makes for asking these folks to finally pay their fair share, I echo Steve Benen's longing for principled, articulate Democrats:
... if more Democrats were able to make the case for the underlying social contract as effectively, our discourse would be vastly less mind-numbing.
Folks, fair warning. This is going to be a rant. I just saw a post at FiredUp! that got me worked up. The gist:
Roy Blunt, who declared during his U.S. Senate campaign that "there isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth," has cosponsored legislation to completely eliminate the Environment [sic] Protection Agency.
Why am I so exercised by this same ol', same ol' posturing? I just finished reading Hot: "Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth, by long-time climate reporter Mark Hertsgaard. It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but it broke it all down, tracing the trajectory of changes that are already taking place, that cannot now be stopped, only mitigated. It painted a clear picture of the world my dear nieces and nephews and all the lovely children and grandchildren of my friends will have to face.
So what's the world, literally, coming to? Nothing is absolutely, picture-perfect sure, of course, except that the world I know, that formed the experience of my father and his father will disappear. My beautiful California, the incomparable Central Coast where I grew up, is likely to dry up and blow away as the Sierra snow pack that waters the state continues to disappear. Low lying cities such New York and Miami will have to hustle to ward of the flooding that threatens them as sea level continues to rise. You doubt me? It's already beginning to happen along the Atlantic seaboard. Island nations in the South Pacific are already disappearing.
We will see more extreme storm activity, floods like this spring's will be more commonplace - but may well alternate with equally debilitating droughts. You think Missouri farmers who oppose cap-and-trade have a point about somewhat higher immediate energy costs? When their farms are part of the new dust bowl, ask them if they maybe should have listened to the scientific Cassandras who carried the warning, instead of politicians on the energy industry dole, or those quislings who worry that climate change isn't a winning political issue.
Plants and animal species will die out or migrate, upsetting a biological equilibrium that has endured for millenia. Think there's a problem with economic migration right now? Wait until whole populations are displaced by drought, flood, and loss of land mass. Think about starvation, disease and war in the underdeveloped areas, and diminished quality of life in the richer countries - nobody will get off free.
Do I really believe this or something like it will happen in the next 50 plus years? Absolutely - although the effects may be lessened if people begin now to plan on how to adapt to the coming changes - and to mitigate the rate of change. The weight of genuine authority, the word of people who have made the study of this issue their life's work, is overwhelming.
For example, take the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, in the words of the Washington Post, "the country's preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers." A new report released by the National Research Council presents findings that indicate that:
Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.
Guess ol' Roy just decided to ignore these experts charged with making their expertise available to guide his decisions. But that's par for the course - stop and think about who always disputes the effects of climate change and the need to address it? As the Washington Postobserves, we have been misled, and the most prominent culprits are just too dumb to hide:
None of this should come as a surprise. None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change.
Seizing on inevitable points of uncertainty in something as complex as climate science, and on misreported pseudo-scandals among a few scientists, Republican members of Congress, presidential candidates and other leaders pretend that the dangers of climate change are hypothetical and unproven and the causes uncertain.
To put it in local terms, think about ex-insurance shill, Blaine Luetkemeyer, and his war against the IPCC. Or good ol' boy auctioneer Billy Long and all the other clowns who, get this, voted to refute the fact of climate change.
And then there's always the oil exec's best friend, Roy Blunt. I hope he enjoys the thirty pieces of silver he got from his big oil cronies - because if there is actually something like an afterlife, I'm sure he'll get a very warm, make that blistering, reception.
Want to know what effect the Tea Party has had on American political life? Just consider that even the traditional media types are having trouble not snickering about the GOP presidential lineup, which ranges from the possibly insane Michell Bachmann, to clownish panderers like Donald Trump, and pathetic panderers like the once serious Mitt Romney. As Steve Benen remarked today:
It's problematic that a ridiculous reality-show host is leading some national polls, but it's also troubling that the Republican presidential field is so ridiculous, every few weeks we find ourselves wondering, "Do we really have to take _____ seriously?
With the speculation that Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer may be getting ready to wade into the GOP senatorial pool, it struck me that we have much the same situation here in Missouri with regard to the 2012 senatorial race. With the exception of Ann Wagner, about whom there's been very little recent buzz, it seems like most of Missouri's senatorial hopefuls have been dredged up from the stale leavings at the bottom of the Tea Party kettle.
Both Sarah Steelman and Ed Martin have gone way beyond just flirting with the Tea Party, alhough it doesn't seem to be doing them much good. Both have had abysmal fund-raising luck so far, which doesn't bode well for their chances. Could this be Tea Party blow-back? Certainly, lots of erstwhile Tea Partiers seem to be either too tired or too embarrassed to keep turning out in their silly costumes - or, my theory, they're a little taken aback now that they've had a chance to see just what the Tea Party darlings they sent to Washington and to statehouses all over the country really want to do.
There may be other reasons, though, for the poor showing from the intrepid Tea Party duo. Martin certainly carries loads of negative baggage from his days in the Blunt administration, and his cheerfully aggressive style suggests nothing more than a determined con. These negatives may have combined with his laughable - and losing - antics in his recent House campaign to besmirch any Tea Part gloss he's picked up.
In Steelman's case, I'm tempted to wonder if the good ol' GOP boys and their Tea Party pals, in spite of all their nay-saying, might not be put off by a tough, aggressive female candidate. Steelman certainly doesn't have the respectable - and manageable - country club aura cultivated by old-line GOP women - an Ann Wagner, for instance - and there does seem to be a palpable distaste for her that is based on style rather than substance. Remember Mark Reardon's "not the sharpest fork in the drawer" remark, which was occasioned by an interview in which Steelman, by any objective standard, actually did a creditable job regurgitating the talking points delivered by almost all GOPers? Not exactly an IQ test to start with, yet she alone was deemed to have failed on the basis of delivering the standard GOP boiler plate that, otherwise, seems to be de rigeur.**
Rep. Todd Akin could, of course, be regarded as the elder statesman of Teahadists, sort of a joke among the jokes. A charter member of the House's Tea Party caucus, there isn't an absurd right wing position that he hasn't been able to render even more ridiculous. Health care? Akin says leave it to charity. Medicare? Akin says it saps our character, leading to a "sniveling" entitlement state. Social Security? A "terrible investment" that he "doesn't like." Religion? Akin, an advocate for David Barton's Christian Nation, says bring it on; there's enough Christian Sharia for everybody.
If Luetkemeyer, the only other Missouri House member to join the Tea Party caucus, chooses to enter this select group - and David Catenese thinks that "whether it's Luetkemeyer or Akin who runs could ultimately be determined by which member is more unsatisfied with the final (redistricting)* lines signed into law - he will bring his own special schtick. Luetkemeyer has most memorably made his bones as a climate denialist. Just what Missouri needs in the senate - another crackpot, anti-science, energy industry stooge to stand in the way of green industrial development and new jobs.
What does it mean that almost all the declared - and possibly soon-to-declare - Missouri senatorial contenders are tea-partying far out on the right wing of an out-of-control GOP plane? Does it maybe indicate that the prospect of paying more than lip service to the Tea Party's extreme and often contradictory demands has frightened off the saner GOPers in the state? Perhaps there are also some implications for what's going to happen to that wildly veering GOP plane itself.
Another question would arise should any of these loonies manage to defeat Claire McCaskill in 2012. That question would pertain to the intelligence of the average Missouri voter and the answer would be to too depressing to contemplate.
*"redistricting" added to text.
** Sentence edited for clarity. Picture from Wikimedia Commons
Today I got one of those emails filled with jokes that lots of folks like to pass around. The topic was hard times and one joke caught my attention: Times are so hard that Exxon-Mobil has had to lay off 24 congressmen.
My response? If only we could be so lucky. Maybe we could get rid of Todd Akin, Billy Long, Sam Graves, Blaline Luetkemeyer and Vicky Hartzler, Missouri's own House climate denialist squad, all avid students of the oil industry rule book, and, as FiredUp! reported yesterday, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, champing at the bit to vote to deny that climate change is taking place. Perhaps they'll vote to deny that the sun comes up in the East tomorrow.
I don't mean to say that all the members of this little group are actually in the employ of oil giants like Exxon - although Luetkemeyer does seem to be auditioning to be one of the official big oil lackeys in Congress. Many of them impress me as quite capable of patting themselves on the back for this vote because they are actually simple enough to buy into the anti-science, energy industry agenda also promulgated by more cynical players, such as our Senator Roy Blunt, who, hard times or no, will probably continue to rake in scads of big-oil money while toeing the line on climate change.
No matter what their motivation, however, if these people are so willing to take a stand that is likely to have disastrous consequences for those of us who will still be around in twenty years - and which will certainly challenge our children and grandchildren - they ought to have some very explicit skin in the game. It is one thing to gamble their grandchildren, but another when it comes to mine and yours, not to mention millions of children in nations whose parents never got to lobby know-nothing American politicians about what will happen to their world. Shouldn't there be some really hard-core consequences for these fools who have decided to ignore or obfuscate scientific findings they and their patrons don't like?
What I am proposing is that if, within, say, a twenty to thirty year period, starting this year, the predictions of climate science come to pass to such a degree that they can no longer be denied, and there has been no meaningful effort on the part of the U.S. to mitigate those effects, the legislators who stood in the way of mitigation should agree today that they will consent to step up and be tried for crimes against humanity - like the Nuremberg trials, but for climate denialists whose willful political behavior resulted in death and disruption of nations.They should have no problem with committing themselves to this course if they really believe the ersatz arguments of the denialists.
The need for such a contingency occured to me while I was reading an excellent book by the journalist Mark Hertsgaard, Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth. Hertsgaard, who has been reporting on climate change for the past twenty years, draws upon the findings of climate scientists to paint a picture of the world with which his young daughter will have to cope - and it's not pretty. As he puts it on his Webpage, we will see "... Chicago's climate transformed to resemble Houston's; dwindling water supplies and crop yields at home and abroad; the redesign of New York and other cities against mega-storms and sea-level rise."
Hertsgaard makes the point that, because of the willingness of clowns like Luetkemeyer, Akin, Hartzler, et al., we have already gone past the point of no return. Drastic climate change will take place and there is nothing we can do about it - except keep it from getting worse by curbing CO2 emissions (mitigation), and preparing our infrastructure to adapt to the changes already in the pipeline (adaptation). If we do nothing, then total disaster. Already, though, no matter what we do, it is a sure thing that our children and grandchildren will inhabit an increasingly difficult environment.
If, as seems likely to be the case, nothing is done, the fools who led nations down the garden path ought to have to pay the price - and if they believe in their actions, they should stand up and put themselves on the line right now and commit to going on trial if they are wrong and their criminal ignorance results in pain, suffering and death. Surely they'll be willing to put their money, so to speak, where their mouth is. Who wants to join me in asking Akin, Long, Graves, Hartzler, Luetkemeyer, and Blunt to take the pledge that they'll be willing to personally pay the price if the course they are committing all of us to follow proves to be disastrously wrong?
Freshman GOP House members Vicky Hartzler and Billy Long, back in Missouri last week after their grueling first few weeks of playing cut the tail off the donkey (a.k.a. blindfolded budgeting), had a chance to visit the Teople and pat themselves on the back. Miss Vicky declared cutting spending was fun, and ol' Billy showed off his GOPer creative accounting skills when, speaking of the $61 billion in proposed GOP spending cuts, he observed that "We got the $100 billion cut!"
What they didn't tell anyone, though, was that the magically mushrooming $61 billion worth of cuts was directed at discretionary spending which comprises only 14% of the budget, and as far as cutting the deficit or ongoing spending goes, will have as much effect as swatting a gnat - although it will worsen the situation of many of their poor and middle class constituents. It will cost our fragile economy 700,000 jobs, while Goldman Sachs economists predict that it will depress GDP by as much as two points - seriously endangering our economic recovery.
Nor should you expect our otherwise garrulous Missouri GOPers to say much about one of the first votes taken after the House went back into session this week. After spending time back home squawking about how they all ganged up to beat back the dire deficit threat, each and every member of the Missouri GOP voted to retain massive subsidies that support the oil industry - oddly enough, an industry that pours tons of shekels into GOP campaign coffers.
So whaddya think? Is the GOP serious about deficit cutting? Steve Benen answers:
For the typical American, I suspect this will seem hard to understand. In the face of fiscal challenges, Republicans are ready to slash funding in education, health care, job training, and national security, but they're not willing to end taxpayer subsidies -- our money -- for the oil industry? An industry that's already enjoying extraordinary profits?
Also note, ending the subsidies would save the federal government tens of billions of dollars, making a significant dent in the deficit-reduction campaign that Republicans pretend to care about. It's a reminder that the GOP's commitment to fiscal responsibility is shaped in large part by who'll suffer as a result of the cuts -- working families can feel the brunt of the budget ax, under the GOP vision, but ExxonMobil can't.
Personally, I just want to make sure, when the economy tanks again, that everybody knows who's responsible: Todd Akin, Sam Graves, Vicky Hartzler, Billy Long, Blaine Luetkemeyer.
And, to give credit where credit's due, here's the list of folks who think that shared sacrifice means the fat cats share ante up as well: Russ Carnahan, Lacy Clay and Emanuel Cleaver.
UPDATE: Perhaps the GOPers were so fearless in their votes defending oil subsidies because they knew they could depend on FOX news and other conservative outlets to obfuscate the issue and give them cover.
In the past couple of weeks there has been a spate of newspaper articles reporting that the House passed Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer's (R-9) budget bill amendement to deny funding to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which he characterizes as "engaged in dubious science." I admit that I did not do a comprehensive survey, but few of the newspaper articles that I saw bothered to examine Luetkemeyer's rationale for that belief.
This St. Louis Post-Dispatch article is typical. It summarizes Luetkemeyer's assertions, briefly quotes another congressman, Rep. Henry Waxman, who, predictably, criticizes Luetkemeyer, and leaves the issue there. The reader can be forgiven for thinking that this is just another partisan squabble. Some articles actually get a quote from a scientist who, naturally, finds Luetkemeyer's actions disturbing. But nobody evaluates the evidence either way.
For example, many of Luetkemeyer's assertions about the IPCC hinge on his embrace of the "climategate" scam. In the Post-Dispatch article cited above he references the manufactured controversy to justify his claim that the IPCC is "nefarious":
Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda
Climategate gave rise to no substantive criticism of the IPCC findings - just efforts to cast aspersions on the group's impartiality, based on a few casual emails from IPCC participants at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). The Post-Dispatch article said nothing about the fact that half a dozen investigations of the alleged wrongdoing have vindicated the scientists involved. Most recently, the U.S. Commerce Department Inspector General, who initiated an investigation into the Climategate accusations at the behest the the notorious denialist, Senator James Inhoffe (R-OK), concluded that:
In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.
In his press release on the topic, Luetkemeyer also touts a report in which he says "more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC." Several news reports on Luetkemeyer's legislation also mention his promotion of this report. The Dake Page, a science blog, describes the contents in less enthusiastic terms than Luetkemeyer:
... The report is the list of quotes and abstracts compiled by Marc Morano (a lobbyist funded non-scientist) when he worked for James Inhofe during Inhofe's previous chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. While some of the scientists listed are in fact acclaimed, mostly they are in completely separate fields of study and have never done any climate research. Others are not scientists at all. And many of the quotes and abstracts have been edited to suggest positions many of the scientists say they do not hold.
It shouldn't really have been too difficult to come up with this information. Especially since several of the "700 scientists," such as Steve Rayner from Oxford, have very publicly repudiated the report and asked that their names, included without their permission, be removed.
The fact is that the basis upon which Rep. Luetkemeyer suggests we withhold vital support from the IPCC is easily demonstrated to be false. The real tragedy is that we desperately need the type of unified research effort that only a cooperative body like the IPCC can provide. Yet our press allows misguided and ignorant politicians like Luetkemeyer to besmirch its reputation with impunity.
Given the importance of the issue, would it have been too much to have expected the Post-Dispatch reporter to go just a little deeper? None of the facts above are hard to find or to verify. He wouldn't have to say that Luetkemeyer is peddling hokum; he should just do a little more fact checking. We rely on newspapers for truth about what our leaders are doing and saying. Reporting what is authoritatively known about important questions - and climate change is indisputably important - does not constitute bias - unless you think that a bias in favor of the truth is wrong.
In Ireland abortion is illegal. This prohibition, the legacy of government for many years in thrall to the Irish Catholic Church, was tested by an international controversy in 1992 when a fourteen year old girl, a victim of abuse by a family friend, was denied permission by the Dublin High Court to travel to England for an abortion. After an extensive period of negative international publicity and internal Sturm und Drang, the ruling was reversed by the Irish Supreme Court on the grounds that under a 1983 amendment to the Irish abortion law, the right to life of a pregnant woman is at least equal to that of a fetus, and, as the girl was suicidal, her life was threatened by the pregnancy.
This ruling established the only exception to Ireland's anti-abortion policy, though it continues to be an exceptionally fraught issue. The controversy was fictionalized in Edna O'Brian's 1997 novel, Down by the River, which vividly depicts the emotional travail caused by state meddling in private lives in the service of majority religious beliefs.
I bring up the Irish "X Case," as it was called, because, if Todd Akin, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Jo Ann Emerson, Billy Long and Vicky Hartzler have their way, American women will be facing situations just as stupid and sad. This political rogue's gallery of forced birthers have all signed on to co-sponsor HR3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which would limit the rape exemption for federal abortion funding to instances of "forcible" rape. This limitation could easily have exempted the young girl in the X case who became pregnant after abuse which might not have met the criteria of force since the facts surrounding her rape were initially in dispute.
Abortion is, of course, still legal in the U.S., and would continue to be so if HR3 is passed since it only pertains to restrictions on public funding. Its provisions are far reaching enough, though, that, if passed, it could have a vastly more far-reaching impact, even for those of us who rely on private insurance. Since the 86% of insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would no longer be tax-deductible for employers, the number of those plans would almost inevitably dwindle along with affordable access to abortion for the middle classes as well as the poor, who, at first glance, would seem to be most likely to be seriously affected.
It is the rape and incest provisions, however, that offer the best picture of the sclerotic mindset behind this proposed legislation. HR3 would restrict abortion funding for individuals who find themselves pregnant as a result of coercion or intimidation, sexually abused children, and pregnant rape victims who were drugged, given alcohol, or who are mentally impaired. Since HR3 rejects current federal definitions of rape and does not define forcible rape explicitly, it is even possible that all cases of rape could be addressed in such a way as to fall outside the exemptions. As for incest, our GOP representatives evidently think it's just fine if the victim is over 18.
Interestingly, the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that Ireland violated the human rights of an Irish woman suffering from cancer who was forced to travel to England for an abortion. Since Ireland is a member of the European Union, this ruling means that abortion laws there will probably undergo a serious review. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., our right to self-determination is increasingly endangered by meddling fools like, for instance, Rick Santorum, a former GOP Senator from Pennsylvania who is unable to decide whether the life of a two-year old child takes priority over five fertilized eggs in a petri dish.
I remember from my rollicking undergraduate days a story about a young American man who, while changing flights in Dublin, tried to buy condoms and was promptly arrested since birth-control was then illegal in the Republic. HR3 represents such a potentially devastating attack on our right to govern our own bodies that I begin to wonder if I should start marking the days until we in the U.S. will have turned back the clock to something like those bad old days in Ireland. If so, Missourians will know exactly whom to blame.
In case you were wondering, Representatives Todd Akin (r), Vicky Hartzler (r), Jo Ann Emerson (r), Sam Graves (r), Billy Long (r), and Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) are co-sponsors (along with 173 others) of HR 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act".
The bill contains a curious use of language:
...SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
`The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
`(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
`(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself...
...as a not-now-pregnant female who was included in anti-choice statutory language up until yesterday, I'd sure like to know why "pregnant females" have all of a sudden been carefully set apart from the larger category of "women".
Any guesses? Is it meant to include the people formerly known as "girls" or is it some brand new poll-tested language intended to divide? The last time I recall using the phrase "pregnant female" I was talking about a hamster.
...3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs [for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet] shall provide each covered dog...
...3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog...
...3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than [ten] one hundred female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog...
...3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog...
...3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog...
Why is it that the sponsors of HR 3 in Congress didn't see fit to use the term "woman" and/or "girl" in that passage of their bill?
But, pregnant female?
The Missouri General Assembly, even in the following example of anti-choice legislation (HB 213), doesn't use that convention of language:
...the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or when continuation of the pregnancy will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman...
...a condition which, on the basis of a physician's good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman...
Today is a disappointing day for our job-creating small business owners, who are greatly affected by the job-killing tax increases that Democrats support, which will take effect in less than a month. Today's job-destroying vote will continue to subject our small businesses to damaging tax hikes, which will only perpetuate the ongoing uncertainty that small business folks have been dealing with for months. My pledge to the people of the 9th District was to oppose all tax increases and to cut spending during these tough economic times. ...
Once again, loud and clear - Blaine Luetkemeyer voted for tax increases for 98% of the American taxpayers, and his "pledge" to oppose "all" tax increases amounts to a willingness to sacrifice that 98% for the sake of those with enough of the green to fork over the big campaign moolah. Nothing more, nothing less.
But Luetkemeyer is right in line with the recommendations suggested by Glen Bolger in a Crossroad GSP GPS funded report on how to obfuscate those facts: Pretend, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that the tax giveaways for the wealthy would affect a majority of small businesses, and that they could have more than a minimal stimulative effect in general. He also deftly uses Bolger's suggested ploy of conflating the tax giveaways for the wealthy with the middle class tax cuts put forward by the Democrats, creating an image of himself as a fighter for equal treatment for all, even those who have had an unequal advantage for the past eight years at least.
Just in case anyone's inclined to take the equality bait, it is useful to look at this chart (source: The Joint Committee on Taxation, via Ezra Klein) that shows just how unequal the middle tax cuts vs. the wealthy tax giveways really are:
Somehow makes Luetkemeyer's (and Akin's) rhetoric about about extending the tax cuts for all "equally" seem just a little hollow.
You may have heard by now that a seminal climate denier document, a report by one Edward Wegman which purportedly debunked the statistics behind the hockey-stick model of global warming, and which effectively set the stage for the climategate scam, was largely plagiarized from a book by Raymond Bradley, one of the scientists whose work Wegman was trying to discredit. Not surprisingly, scientific illiterate, Senator Joe Barton, who, as the former head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, commissioned Wegman's report, has decided to stonewall and still stands by the report "because he claims it 'found significant statistical issues' with climate change data."
However, the scientific writers on the Deep Climate Website, who analyzed the report and verified the charges of plagiarism in the first place, also contend that the problems not only go further, they involve meddling by Barton's staff in order to bias the findings. Although Wegman has tried to minimize the contributions of Barton's staff, he cannot hide the fact that he not only plagiarized Bradley (and Wikipedia (!)), but in doing so, omitted key segments of Bradley's work that would have undermined Wegman's contentions that there were statistical errors in the hockey-stick paradigm. In other words, like almost all of the denialist "evidence" dredged up and paid for by corporate energy interests, this entire document was bogus from beginning to end.
Nevertheless, it has had the effect that it was designed to have. As David Kurtz of TPMputs it, by the time that the report was discredited, "it had already made the rounds and accomplished its main purpose: giving climate change deniers a peg to hang their hats on." This constant denialist noise is the goal of the those who fund and help propagate the attacks on legitimate climate science. A representative of one such organization, the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is on the record about their strategy:
At an October blogger briefing at the Heritage Foundation, Americans For Prosperity president Tim Phillips explained his organization's plans for defending global warming pollution. A day after his policy director, Phil Kerpen, claimed the organization did not question the science of climate change at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event, Phillips relished in the success of the "UK email scandals" for convincing people of a scientific "conspiracy" ... .
And the AFP and similar organizations are succeeding in their effort to discredit climate science. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2006 79% of those polled responded positively when asked about whether there is solid evidence to support global warming. That number has dwindled to 59%.
Sometimes, I really, really wanna take my ball and go home. Lots of my team-mates are already packing up and heading off. Why?
-- They worked hard to get Claire McCaskill into the game; now she plays the odds and mostly comes out for the reddish-purple team.
-- They watch Robin Carnahan try to play the odds just like her soul-sister, Claire.
-- They worked their tails off for Obama and he turned out to like to play in the center (just like he claimed in the campaign).
-- The age of Aquarius never dawned and we have to hustle hard for every little win.
-- Somebody told us that if we pack it in, the rest of the team'll be so sorry they'll play just the way we want them to in the future (and I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you).
So why is anyone still hanging around, bouncing balls off the garage door?
-- We see little twerps like Ed Martin consistently fouling with no penalties leveled.
-- We've read Roy Blunt's game plan as expressed in the corporate wish list he calls his jobs plan.
-- We've heard climate change denier Blaine Luetkemeyer make a fool of himself and Missouri while playing on Merry King Coal's team.
-- We don't think we ought to have to play according to Todd Akin's Christian Sharia rulebook either.
-- We've seen the rest of the Missouri GOP team synchronize their play to the beat called out by the Tea Party-whipped GOP leadership.
Time and new battles have diminished our memory of how bruised we got playing against the rule-bending George Walker Bush bullies, but if we lose this new game by default, the same kind of pols will be calling the shots in Washington once again not just stalling the action. And it'll hurt just that much more when they privatize Social Security, slash Medicare, defund the really good parts of the Affordable Care Act, stop government by initiating hearings and issuing subpoenas over ACORN, birtherism, you name it, while letting Big Money referee the game.
GOP candidates have been running their mouths a lot about jobs, mostly in relation to lower taxes for their favored, well-off constituencies. Roy Blunt's campaign for Senate, for instance, has produced a "Jobs Plan," that is long on GOP boiler-plate (and equally long on "solutions" that seem designed to play well with the energy and telecom industries who support his political ambitions so generously). Rhetoric aside, what does the current GOP record actually look like when proposals that would really have an impact on employment are put on the table?
A rarely discussed structural problem that contributes to the current jobless recovery is that many of the good-paying, manufacturing jobs have been outsourced over the past decade - good for corporations that can exploit the poor in third world countries with impunity, bad for the U.S. employment picture. Roy Blunt doesn't even mention this problem in his jobs plan. GOP Senate team-player, Kit Bond, voted just this week to keep a bill from coming up for a vote that would have imposed tax penalties on companies that outsource their production. Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, voted to end debate and permit a vote on the legislation.
Small business owners often cite tight credit that discourages expansion to explain their failure to hire new workers. However, Republicans, who talk endlessly about the importance of small businesses for recovery, have for months stonewalled legislation designed to address just that issue.
The long-stalled small business lending legislation was passed in the Senate only recently with the help of two Republican Senators who plan to retire at the end of their current terms, which means that they no longer need fear repercussions from the NO party's leadership or its Tea Party-addled base. However, Missouri's retiring Republican Senator, Kit Bond, good GOP soldier that he is, kept faith and continued to march in lockstep with the Party of NO (jobs).
On the House side, Roy Blunt was so busy out on the campaign trail running his mouth about jobs creation that he couldn't manage to even vote on the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010. But Blaine Luetkemeyer, Jo Ann Emerson, Sam Graves, and Todd Akin made up for Roy's indisposition, and handily voted against the interests of the small businesses they love to talk up as the real job creators. You want to know how Missouri Democratic Reps. Carnahan, Cleaver, Clay, and Skelton voted? If you even have to ask, just click on their names and learn who really stands with the middle class.
There are lots of clichés that reflect how strongly Americans feel abut personal integrity: walking the walk, talking out of both sides of your mouth, putting up or shutting up - you can probably supply many more. Today's question is, when it comes to jobs for ordinary, middle class Americans, as opposed to more moolah for the GOP's corporate sugar daddies, how many Republicans can you point to who walk the walk, talk straight, and put up when push comes to shove. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see too many in our Missouri GOP congressional delegation.
Last month, when Michele Bachmann put out the list of the first members of her new congressional Tea Party Caucus, I noted the predictable presence of Teetotaler Todd Akin (R-2nd), and asked where the rest of the Missouri Republican delegation was. The answer is that, with one exception, Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9th), they are still missing.
It might be that Roy Blunt (R-7th), Jo Ann Emerson (R-8th), and Sam Graves(R-6th) still have some capacity for embarrassment. Or that, lacking the sincere conviction that practically oozes from, say, Todd Akin, they want more wiggle room. They may well be worrying about constituents who would think twice about a congressperson whose goal is to "serve as a listening ear to tea parties." (Are you, like me, wondering what kind of ears aren't "listening" ears?)
However, a report from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) suggests that those who haven't yet joined the Tea Party Caucus membership might want to reconsider in the future since:
... analysis shows that the top contributors to the 50 members of a newly-established congressional Tea Party caucus -- which so far includes only Republicans -- are health professionals, retirees, the real estate industry and oil and gas interests.
Furthermore, donations from health professionals, oil and gas interests and Republican and conservative groups are, on average, higher for Tea Party caucus members than for members of the House of Representatives in general and even their fellow House Republicans.
I have to admit my first reaction was so what? These are exactly the groups I would expect to be lavishing funds on legislators on the Tea Party bandwagon - and many of the Missouri politicians that haven't joined the caucus get plenty of moola from those groups as well (you can check out their totals by industrial and other donor groups on CPR's OpenSecrets.org).
However, I began to get the point when I read further:
Tea Party activists have already established political action committees to fund favored candidates. But the formation of the caucus may make it easier to track which industries' interests are aligned with the movement.
If the pattern of giving that CRP has described becomes more marked, perhaps we'll see more movement toward the Tea Party caucus from the rest of the Missouri GOP in the future. Political scientist, Jim Hensen, claims that "The guys that are forming the caucus in Congress are trying to, you know, ride the train ...". Could that be the gravy train he's talking about?
Republicans lost on health care and the Missouri GOP has responded with predictable temper tantrums in order to impress their Tea-Party addled constituents:
--Republican Governor wannabe, Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, is planning to (maybe) file a pseudo official lawsuit against the Obama health care reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
--Rep. Todd Akin (R-2), man of action that he is, isn't waiting around like Kinder, but has just signed on to an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit against the PPACA that the Republican governor of the State of Virginia has filed.
--Roy Blunt (R-7) has announced his support for legislation to "repeal and replace" the "onerous" PPACA by bringing back the much ridiculed earler GOP "alternative," and repackaging it as a new Republican proposal. HR 5424, the Reform Americans Can Afford Act, which is cosponsored by Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9), would cut access to health care, drive up the deficit, reduce the life of the Medicare trust fund by 10 years, and reopen the "donut hole" for prescrption drugs. (As far as reform goes, a bit unclear on the concept perhaps?)
--Not to be outdone by the GOP federal congressional delegation, the state's GOP dominated lege wants Missourians to vote to opt out of health care reform this August.
Just the usual political games you may be thinking - but perhaps not, after all, such smart political moves as some GOPers thought a month or so ago. As Slate reporter, William Salatan observes:
Tales of death panels and warnings about losing your doctor can now be falsified. (That's what happened to the early scare stories about Social Security and Medicare.) And Republicans who denounce the program and promise to repeal it will no longer be bashing an abstraction. They will be proposing to take away existing, tangible benefits... .
... why assume that lockstep Republican opposition will discredit the health care program? Maybe the opposite will happen: Lockstep opposition will discredit Republicans.
Apparently the Democratic National Committee not only agrees with this assessment, but has enough confidence in it to go on the offensive. Which brings me to a great new DNC ad that will soon begin airing:
Update: Speaking of tangible benefits, my husband just forwarded a message from his employer detailing the changes in our health care coverage that have resulted from passage of the PPACA, and needless to say, it's all good. Now just let the Republican try to take it away.
One of the latest blasts from what former conservative pollitical operative David Brock termed the Republican noise machine concerns the ACLU's John Adams Project which provides lawyers to detainees in Guantanamo. Yesterday Missouri Rep. Todd Akin (R-2nd), who seemingly has never encountered a rightwing smear that he doesn't want to spread, rushed in to grab a megaphone in the service of the cause.
This time the sound and fury signifying nothing concerns the discovery of photographs of CIA torturer/interrogators in the cells of Guantanamo detainees. The initial, legitimate concern was whether or not the identities of CIA operatives were illegally disclosed by lawyers from the John Adams Project.
In the aftermath of a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation, which seems to have concluded that no laws were broken, the emphasis shifted to rightwing accusations that some of the DOJ investigators' past associations may have biased their findings. As a consequence, a famously disinterested outside investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been brought in to review the findings. The upshot is that the situation is under control and proceeding according to the appropriate laws and regulations.
If I, a simple citizen with no congressional research staff or interns to help me investigate, can glean this fact from simply looking at newspaper reportage, why does our boy Todd feel the need to send a bombastic letter - signed by 47 Republican Representatives, including Missouri's Blaine Luetkemeyer and Sam Graves - to the DOJ:
It has come to our attention that the Justice Department is investigating a group of lawyers associated with the American Civil Liberties Union and self-identifying as the "John Adams Project". We understand that these lawyers may have intentionally revealed the identify of covert CIA operatives - in clear violation of federal law - to members of Al Queda currently held at Guantanamo Bay. If true, these individuals were assisting our sworn enemies - terrorists who have attached our nation and our allies repeatedly.
... In particular we urgently request that you provide a full accounting to Congress of any indiviudals formerly or currently working for the federal government who are connected to the John Adams Project.
Where to start with this self-important drivel? Why kick up a ruckus at this relatively late date when most of the facts are right out there in the open? Perhaps Akin and pals are trying to gin up a witch hunt to keep the fringewing rabble amused?
Of course, as Emptywheelnotes, there is more going on here than meets the eye. Scandal-mongering this issue is a way to hobble detainees' lawyers' efforts to mount a defense by making it impossible to call witnesses. It also serves the CIA's desire to deflect attention from the question of its interrogation (i.e., torture) methods; and, finally, it has the potential to erode the "DOJ's prosecutorial independence such that it cannot try any torture cases ... ."
The role of Todd Akin in this nasty little smear campaign should make Missourians very ashamed. It should also leave Mr. Akin, if he has any integrity at all, feeling at least a little troubled since he takes every opportunity he can find to sententiously proclaim his devotion to the constitution. As a New York Times editorial writer put it:
It is not the first time that the right has tried to distract Americans from the real issues surrounding detention policy by attacking lawyers. ...
If lawyers who take on controversial causes are demonized with impunity, it will be difficult for unpopular people to get legal representation - and constitutional rights that protect all Americans will be weakened. That is a high price to pay for scoring cheap political points.
Remember Climategate - the manufactured controversy over some emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain? If so, you remember lots of right-wing noise, and little or no substance, right? But lots and lots of noise.
Do you also remember the Missouri congressman who grabbed onto the so-called controversy and used it like a big, ugly club to batter cap-and-trade legislation? If you guessed that it was Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R. 9th) you would be right.
... the "Climategate" emails seem to indicate that the same scientists who were sending data to the UN climate panel were suppressing scientific evidence and manipulating data that was used in part as justification for liberals to pass cap-and-trade legislation.
Recently, though, the first of the actual British investigations (as opposed to bloviating press releases and general bullyboy behavior on the part of climate-change deniers in the U.S. Congress) presented its findings which have "largely vindicated the scientists involved":
With 4 business days left in filing, here are the opponents who have stepped up to face Todd Akin, Sam Graves, and Blaine Luetkemeyer.
.
They're on pace to be unopposed by Democrats. Which is probably the first time that 3 Congressional Republicans have been unopposed in this state in awhile (or ever?)
The last thing those three need to say to themselves after this term is "I was so awesome that nobody opposed me"
Located in the heart of Westport --
The Original Kansas City
Californo's: Elegant dining in a delightful atmosphere,
located in the heart of Westport
The second 
Folks, fair warning. This is going to be a rant. I just saw a 
With the 
No matter what their motivation, however, if these people are so willing to take a stand that is likely to have disastrous consequences for those of us who will still be around in twenty years - and which will certainly challenge our children and grandchildren - they ought to have some very explicit skin in the game. It is one thing to gamble their grandchildren, but another when it comes to mine and yours, not to mention millions of children in nations whose parents never got to lobby know-nothing American politicians about what will happen to their world. Shouldn't there be some really hard-core consequences for these fools who have decided to ignore or obfuscate scientific findings they and their patrons don't like?
In the past couple of weeks there has been a spate of newspaper articles reporting that the House passed Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer's (R-9) budget bill amendement to deny funding to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which 
Last month, when Michele Bachmann put out the list of the first members of her new congressional Tea Party Caucus, 
It might be that Roy Blunt (R-7th), Jo Ann Emerson (R-8th), and Sam Graves(R-6th) still have some capacity for embarrassment. Or that, lacking the sincere conviction that practically oozes from, say, Todd Akin, they want more wiggle room. They may well be worrying about constituents who would think twice about a congressperson whose goal is to "
One of the latest blasts from what former conservative pollitical operative David Brock 
