A Global Initiative.


Recently it has come to light that there exists a petition, which contains the signatures of more than 31,000 “scientists” who have collectively refuted claims of man-made global warming.

Organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the purpose of this petition is to demonstrate that “the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.”

So what qualifications does one need to have the honor of signing his or her name to such a prestigious petition? Apparently not many. Anybody with a BS can qualify, even those who are no longer living, or hold degrees in relevant fields. The OISM also wanted to let everyone know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something.

I looked up one of the honorees - a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia - and thought it would be appropriate to ask him in writing to explain his reasoning behind signing the petition. Below is the letter that I emailed to him. I encourage all conscientious objectors to take up this cause to call out those who continue to stand in the way of common sense and decency. Our planet’s health is at stake. It is time to end this madness once and for all.


To Dr. W. Kline Bolton

You recently signed a petition questioning the validity of man-made global warming. I was wondering what level of expertise you possess that allows you to make such an informed opinion on the subject.

Seeing as how you are one of some 31,000 scientists that have signed this petition, some of who it seems are deceased, I feel it is appropriate for you to address this issue. With so many experts in the field convinced we have a problem that needs to be dealt with, I'm sure you can appreciate how "bad" science can distort the truth and blind us all to the obvious.

With the lives of billions of people hanging in the balance, now is the time for responsible people to put aside political posturing and wishful thinking and strive to bring about real solutions to our planet's dilemma. The consideration of a reply is requested.


Regards,


Peter W. Fegan

Making Sense of Independent Voters and Their Mood Swings.


There’s an old saying among Floridians that you might’ve heard of. If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes. Whoever coined that saying must’ve been an independent voter. Only an independent could be perceptive enough to know how fickle the weather can be, not to mention his own voting record. While reading David Brooks’ op-ed piece in The New York Times, “What Independents Want,” I was struck by the above saying and found it curious that someone with as much gravitās into Washington politics as Brooks can be so easily fooled into reaching the conclusions he did regarding last week’s gubernatorial races. For a self-described moderate, Brooks shows an amazing lack of insight into how moderates and independents actually think. Let’s look at the piece shall we.

While Brooks correctly points out that independent voters represent “the largest group in the electorate” and lack “the think tanks to provide arguments, politicians and pundits to amplify them, and news media outlets to deliver streams of prejudice-affirming stories,” he couldn't have been more wrong about what actually happened election night and why.

As usual Brooks is thorough in presenting a narrative about the current volatility of independent voters. That he is astute enough to refer to them as “herds of cats who find out what they think through a meandering process of discovery” – one of his better metaphors I might add - underscores what everyone who has ever read him already knows: that he is nothing if eloquent. But then Brooks proceeds to make the same mistakes virtually every pundit on election night made; he draws the wrong conclusions from his own narrative.

The returns on election night ’09 do not portend any trend worth noting, much less a swing to the right by independents. Brooks writes,

“According to Gallup, the share of independents who describe their views as conservative has moved from 29 percent last year to 35 percent today. The share of independents who believe there is too much government regulation of business has jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent. Independents are in the position of a person who is feeling gravely ill at the same time he has lost faith in his doctor.”

Amazing how Brooks uses the image of a patient and a doctor to describe the current trend, yet fails to see the correlation and relevance that such imagery represents in the political landscape. The point is nobody stays ill forever. Today’s quack is tomorrow’s healer. Should the economy recover sufficiently by next year, I wonder what the Gallup polls will reveal about the level of government regulation. Deficit spending only means something to a voter when they’re out of work or hurting financially. Otherwise, it’s about as useful as a Glenn Beck monologue.

If we have learned anything about American voters – particularly moderate or independent voters - is that they value results over principles. Two plus two equals four always and everywhere. How one gets there is irrelevant. Brooks should know this; he has been writing about it for years. As I said in an earlier blog the results in last weeks elections represent one thing and one thing only: the American electorate is pissed off and is taking it out on whoever is in charge. Partisan hacks who talk a good talk, but who do not have any answers are out. More people may watch Fox News than any other cable news outlet, but so far it hasn’t translated into anything more significant than ratings boosts. One look at New York’s 23rd is all you need to know about how much ideology meant to a district that hadn’t voted Democrat in over a hundred years. Please!

Both political parties need to get their proverbial heads out of their butts and start offering solutions that work. Today it is Democrats who appear to be taking it on the chin; tomorrow it will be Republicans. Anyone in power who is perceived as not getting the job done will most likely be getting his or her pink slips over the next twelve months. This constant see-saw battle between the parties is nothing new, namely because it was never about ideology in the first place. It's the same thing that drives a Monday-morning quarterback and trying to figure it out or make any conclusions beyond tomorrow's sports scores is futile. The reason they're called independents is because they're independent. If they'd wanted an identity they've would've joined a major political party. Labeling them as shifting to the right, as Brooks did, ignores a basic tenant in American politics.

Just as no able-bodied seaman worth his weight in salt would ever rely on fair weather to get home safely, no political pundit should attempt to take the temperature of an entire electorate based solely on a few small elections. Counting on the weather is a fool’s errand, and has lead many a ship to a watery grave. It has also left more than just a few otherwise astute political columnists a bit red-faced.

Shame On You!

Well it’s that time again. Once more we dive into the pit of despair and ignorance and pull out this month’s winners of the Shame on You awards. As always, it was a tough job narrowing down the nominees, but I think you’ll agree that this month’s winners are more than deserving.

The envelope please:

First place this month goes to lifelong space cadet and Captain Video alumna Michele Bachmann who held her own little Tea Party on the steps of the Capitol last week in protest of the pending vote in the House on healthcare reform – a bill by the way that passed. Not only did Bachmann do her best Glenn Beck impersonation of inciting the throng of malcontents who obviously have nothing better to do than waste an entire day listening to rubbish, but in the process she managed to enlist the participation of many of her Republican colleagues, among them Representatives Steve King of Iowa, Trent Franks of Arizona, Randy Forbes of Virginia, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Louie Gohmert and Ted Poe of Texas. The significance? While they were attending the “Super Bowl of Freedom” as Bachmann referred to it, all missed votes in the House Judiciary committee on Republican-sponsored amendments to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act -- measures that would have toughened the Act, and which narrowly failed.

One measure, offered by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, would have extended the "lone wolf" provisions of the Act, which would allow the FBI to conduct surveillance or search foreign nationals even if it can't be shown that the person is an agent of a foreign power. Many conservatives believe that had this provision been in effect before 9/11, the FBI might have caught Zacarias Moussaoui. Republicans said that extending the lone wolf provision this time around was crucial to protecting national security. Even some Democrats supported the measure, giving it a good chance of passage. But it failed by a single vote, 15-15. King and Gohmert were absent, no doubt doing their patriotic duty.

Maybe next time a crucial vote in the House comes up, we can all spare a few extra dollars and sponsor a Tea Party of our own on the steps of the Capitol. Maybe if we get enough contributors we can get the entire Republican Party and Fox News to leave Washington long enough so we can get some things done. Maybe Michele Bachmann isn’t so crazy after all; maybe she’s really a Democrat posing as a Republican. Hmmm. On second thought scratch that. That would require intelligence and the ability to feign stupidity. As we all know, dear old Michele is incapable of either. Shame on you, Ms. Bachmann, for posing as an earthling.

Our runner up is House Minority Leader John Boehner (pronounced Bayner, but better known as Boner for his latest faux pas). While attending the “Super Bowl of Freedom” Boehner began to read a passage from what he called the Preamble to the Constitution. The problem for Boehner was the words he was quoting came not from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,” as any grade school student would know does not come from the Preamble to the Constitution. The words Boehner should’ve quoted were as follows: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Perhaps it’s time for Mr. Boehner to go back to the 5th grade. We can accept such ignorance from the likes of a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck, but not from the senior leader of the Republican Party.

Not content to mangle the Constitution though, Boehner outdid himself by introducing the Republican version of healthcare reform. A bill that insures only an additional three million people, does nothing to curb costs and allows pre-existing clauses to remain in practice. In other words the perfect recipe for an insurance industry that never wanted reform in the first place. The Congressional Budget Office thoroughly trashed the plan. I guess there is justice after all. Seriously though, Boehner and his Republican cronies never expected their plan to get any traction; if was all just a show to convince the gullible that they were desirous of reform when in fact reform is the last thing they want. Shame on you, sir, for pretending to care, as well as have a brain.

Bringing up the rear this month is Connecticut “Independent” Senator Joseph Lieberman, who once more is proving his true colors by threatening to join a Republican filibuster against healthcare reform if it contains a public option.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Lieberman called the controversial public option, which is in the House bill and the Senate version being prepared by Harry Reid, an unnecessary provision intended to bring government-run health insurance in the future. "If the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote," Lieberman said. He previously has said he won't oppose opening Senate debate on the bill despite the public option provision, and he maintained that stance Sunday.

Connecticut is home to some of the nation’s biggest health insurance companies, among them Aetna, which is the tenth largest contributor to Liebermann’s reelection committee. And Lieberman’s opposition to the public option puts him completely out of step with Connecticut voters. As this polling from 538.com’s Nate Silver shows, voters in every single one of Connecticut’s congressional districts favor the inclusion of a public option in healthcare legislation by wide margins. The stated reason for Lieberman’s stance on the public option — that it would increase the debt and create another entitlement — is misplaced and dishonest. As ThinkProgress has noted before, the public option would be self-sustaining and would cut the deficit. Leibermann knows this all too well.

It is time Democrats showed this pariah the proverbial door. Bad enough he actively campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin during last year’s Presidential election, he now threatens to side with Republicans on a bill his own constituents want. Despicable. I say strip him of his committee chairs and tell him if he wants to be a Republican, then he should have the courage to stand officially as one of them. Shame on you, Mr. Liebermann for being a fraud and ignoring your own citizenry.

Spin City

While the GOP attempts to make gubernatorial gains in Virginia and New Jersey a referendum on Barack Obama, the real story was in a tiny northern New York Congressional District.


The spin doctors were all smiles at Fix News this past Tuesday night as Republicans won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. Shepard Smith was practically beside himself with glee as he read off the election results. At the risk of sounding a bit crude, I thought we were going to witness cable news’ first on-air orgasm. The Obama party is over! Yeah! Break out the champagne. Look out Dems, the GOP is back. 2010 is just around the corner and we’re gonna kick some major political butt.

Well, at the risk of being a party pooper, hold onto your champagne glasses – especially you Shep! - and don’t pop that cork just yet, or anything else for that matter. True losing two states’ governorships – one in a blue, the other in a purple – hurt a bit. But, as any first year political science major will tell you, governor’s races are NOT particularly indicative of mood swings within the national electorate at large; they are far more indicative of conditions within a rather small geographic area. Also, with the country in a recession, voters tend to take their frustrations out on either the incumbent or, as was the case in Virginia, the incumbent’s party. Virginia, in fact, is a case study in that for the last 36 years, the party that wins the White House loses the governorship; only twice – in 1993 and 2005 – has the state election portended anything significant for the mid-terms.

Claims by the GOP that independent voters have suddenly flocked over to the Republican Party and abandoned the President are baseless. For one thing, Obama’s approval numbers continue to be strong in both states (51% in Virgina and 54% in New Jersey). Secondly, it is always a given that no political candidate can win an election without the independent vote. Why should it be a surprise that both Republican candidates did extremely well in this demographic? And lastly, anyone who followed the New Jersey race knew all too well that Democrat Jon Corzine ran a lousy campaign; his attack ads against his opponent Chris Christie gave the 527s a run for their money. His own negatives were way too high for an incumbent and in the end they did him in.

Seriously, does anybody expect this state to turn red in 2012? Even the exit polls in northern Virginia continue to indicate that the state is far more moderate than it is conservative. If the current trend of transplanted northerners migrating southward continues, and all indications are it will, the chances are the middle-Atlantic states will mover farther to the center and away from conservatives. Barring a complete economic meltdown, Barack Obama could still fare well there in 2012 and carry the state again. The only message anyone with a half a brain can take from both these elections is that the electorate was very frustrated at the way things were going and that tends to mean change at the top. If Republicans had held both states, in all likelihood they would’ve gone Democrat and we’d be talking about the continuing Obama revolution.

But the election that the GOP doesn’t seem to want to talk much about today is the one they threw everything but the proverbial kitchen sink at: New York’s 23rd Congressional District. In a stunning repudiation of the wingnuts that have been driving the Republican bus, voters in that district elected the first Democrat to represent them since 1871. That’s right, you heard correct: 1871, not 1971. More than one hundred thirty years have passed since the last time a Republican did not call this district his home. Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Mike Savage, and the rest of the stooges who are looking to “take back” the GOP were about as effective at convincing the voters in upstate New York to vote for Doug Hoffman, as a drunk driver at a sobriety checkpoint trying to convince a cop he was dry as a whistle.

For what the results in the New York 23rd should’ve indicated not only to the GOP, but to everybody else who paid close attention, was that the voters rejected ideology over substance. They went for someone who could best represent their local interests, even if it meant voting for a Democrat. Dick Armey may have called Doug Hoffman the “real Republican,” but the simple truth was he didn’t even live in the district, had no idea what the major issues were, and the voters, in the end, saw through the smoke screen. He may have been popular in Sarah Palin’s facebook account, but it wasn’t enough to put him over the finish line.

Attempts by the Right to say that they “saved” the district from a far worse humiliating defeat by ousting liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava are lame at best. Before Hoffman was dragged into the race by the wingnuts, Scozzafava was ahead in virtually every poll. Without their interference, she most likely would’ve been elected by a comfortable margin. And as for the other claim by the Far Right that they sent a clear message to the Republican Party that those who don’t embrace a true conservative message will be challenged and defeated, point taken. Attention all moderates: your services are no longer required by the GOP. To paraphrase a well-known airline commercial, “You are now free to roam the political landscape.”

Sadly the Republican Party doesn’t even understand what happened Tuesday night. They insist that victories in Virginia and New Jersey, along with a few other local areas, as well as the defeat in New York’s 23rd are a repudiation of the President’s policies and indicate a building tide of conservatism that will sweep them into power in 2010 and 2012. And you thought children only suffered this badly from naiveté. The real truth is that the people voted for those candidates that ran to the center and spoke to their needs. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell – a conservative – ran a centrist campaign, avoided much of the controversy swirling around his own Party, “declined” offers from ultra conservatives to speak on his behalf, and offered solutions to the electorate that made sense to many of them. In the end it got him elected. Hmmm, makes you think doesn’t it? When Republicans field candidates who are inclusive, are likeable, and have real solutions to real problems they do well; when they are beholden to useless ideology, engage in divisive discourse, and are perceived only as obstructionists they do poorly. It’s that simple. If there was a repudiation of anything election night, it was stupidity and the GOP had best pay close attention if it expects to pick up seats in both the House and Senate in next year’s mid-terms.

As for the Democrats, a wakeup call was delivered loud and clear that should be heeded. True the Democrats and Obama inherited this economic mess, but they are now the incumbents, which means they are responsible for it going forward. Bush may have torpedoed the ship, but the passengers want to know how the current officers are going to keep it from foundering. Pulling the economy back from the brink was critical, and probably kept the nation from plunging into a depression, but on Main Street, where unemployment remains at, near, or, in some places, above ten percent, people demand answers. Talking about GDP growth when people don’t have jobs and can’t pay their bills shows a lack of empathy for real suffering, and that translates to election losses. While Republican gains may not be indicative of any paradigm shift in the nation’s political mood, they are indicative of a growing angst within the electorate. The public has a short fuse; hence elected officials are on a short leash. The warning to all incumbents – Democrat and Republican alike - could not be clearer: Shape up or ship out! If you can’t cut the mustard, we’ll find someone who can. In the coming years, Party affiliation will continue to mean less and less and voters will be far more interested in results-oriented candidates who can get the job done, be they Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Vulcan! Loyalty isn’t what it used to be. Jon Corzine found that out the hard way, and ideologues on both sides of the political aisle should pay close attention. The American people want solutions, not rhetoric.