Just when I was wondering where to get that extra bit of cash to finish out the winter, here comes the delightful announcement (covered here by the Guardian), that the American Enterprise Institute (Bush’s other brain, and funded by big oil) is offering $10,000 to professionals who will refute the findings of the newly released, definitive international document laying the blame for climate change at humanity’s feet

Finally some easy money!

So I am wasting no time firing off my own piece to collect my $10,000 bounty. I’ve posted it below for your perusal. By all means, give me your feedback (and you might wanna consider penning yer own and gettin’ a piece of this – I understand profits are up, so there’s…er… money to burn – which is a good thing, since we’re running out of oil…)

My proposal:

Dear Sirs,

It is with great enthusiasm that I present to you my response to your call for papers discrediting the newly released international scientific report on climate change. I eagerly anticipate the $10,000 reward promised to those of us who author such papers.

Now, you may ask “has he actually read the report?” Don’t worry, the answer is no (who am I, Al Gore?). Given that your $10,000 bounty for writers to knock the piece was issued before the report was published, I can see that you have an appreciation for removing the middleman and wasting no time. But I got all I need to know from Yahoo.

Also, you need have no concerns about my credentials. I am most certainly NOT a scientist. I am, in fact, a political hack – making me among that class which has the ultimate authority and wisdom on scientific documents. Again, as a believer in smaller government, I’m sure you appreciate that by going with MY piece, you are in fact, streamlining government.

So, here is my refutation:

The latest nonsense from the watermelon crowd (you know, green on the outside – but red on the inside…heh…get it? heh…) purports to definitively prove that so-called “global”, so-called “climate”, so called “change” is a product of modern industrial society. That it’s all our fault. I offer below five arguments that show definitively that the document in question is flawed, and should be recycled for use as Presidential signing statements.

1. The document suggests that low lying countries such as Bangladesh may be threatened by rising sea levels. this argument is irrelevant for the following reason. Americans cannot see Bangladesh with the naked eye. It can therefore have no possible effect on us in America. It therefore does not exist.

(NOTE: This statement is a reflection of established, historical scientific methodology, as the same argument was used to refute Galileo’s supposed discovery of Jovian moons.)

2. The document was released in France, and the head of the UN Climate Council is German. This is clearly a European document, which opens it up to European cultural biases. For example, if the Europeans are starting to feel too warm, it’s probably because, as we know, they don’t wash enough (and their women are overly hairy).

3. The document states that the environment is endangered because the worldwide temperatures are expected to rise between 3.2 and 7.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the 21st Century.

As is typical of anti-American, United Nations bureacratic nonsense, the paper misses the reality that’s staring it right in the face. The temperature has in fact already risen that much this very day – from about 3 AM in the wee hours to noon today (source= the Weather Channel). But don’t worry, it will go back down tonight – as it does every night. It’s not pollution’s fault, it’s the sun, which, as we all know, revolves around the Earth (along with the planets and stars) once every day.

4. The document fails to consider that we are, all of us, made in the image of God, and would God do anything to hurt the Earth?

5. Finally, it is beyond all scientific dispute that Global Warming is cyclical. Purely cyclical. I have included a chart below that clearly explains the cycle:

Please send me my $10,000 check ASAP, as my Hummer is currently low on gas.

Sincerely,

John Odum
Green Mountain Daily

Here is the place to send yours:

ADDRESS:

Kenneth P. Green
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20036
United States
Phone: 202-862-4883
E-mail: kgreen@aei.org

…and by all means, post here with your own versions…

( – promoted by odum)

What’s that you say? You’d like another diary criticizing the media and guaranteed to stir up heated debate? Why, say no more…

It’s all over the news this morning, but in case you haven’t heard, here’s the vt buzz version:

Ross Sneyd of the Associated Press asked the governor if it had been a rough week and was he being a bit defensive about the crises at hand. Sneyd was, in fact, putting words to the very thought that was in my mind.

That’s when things turned strange. Douglas blamed his political opponents:

“There are obviously people who are not interested in my political success, and
they’re certainly exercising every opportunity to try to act on that belief this year.”

Then he blamed the media: “Some of the questions I get from the media sound an awful lot like some of the e-mails that come out of the other party headquarters.”

Huh? I was speechless. Was he saying that questioning the technology security breaches or the delays at the Bennington office building was somehow political? Which Democratic memo had I been unknowingly following?

Fortunately, Sneyd was not entirely speechless. He asked if Douglas was accusing us of carrying the Dems’ water.

“I would never make that assertion,” Douglas said.

“I think you just did,” Sneyd responded.

“Things turned strange?” A bit, I suppose, but not that much.

Quick background. The Governor is having a bad week for two reasons. One is the hack of bank records at Human Services and the subsequent revalation that it could have been prevented by a software patich the department had been sitting on for a while.

The other is the lingering concern over the health of state workers in a Bennington state “sick building.” A few days ago, Douglas made the peculiar decision to go talk to the workers about it personally, a decision that left workers feeling no less cynical about the pace and timing of the Governor’s involvement:

Douglas and Smith met with employees Tuesday but refused to provide a date that workers would be out by. Neither were able to provided many answers to employees, but Smith said he would try to get back to them by Thursday. The memo was the result of meeting with workers and trying to address their concerns, said Smith.

“Yesterday, I got a group of cross-agency people … together in one room and said, ‘we need to move,'” said Smith. “What you’ve got to realize … is that mountains have been moved.”

But workers, although grateful to see action from the administration Thursday, still questioned why it took so long for the governor to call for such drastic measures.

The state was first notified that six workers had been diagnosed with sarcoidosis last June. A decision was made last October to move workers out and Buildings and General Services Commissioner R. Tasha Wallis said it would happen within 30 to 45 days. Eight months later, workers are still showing up to work in the building that they say has made many of them sick.

Some employees said they were thankful that the Senate bill appeared to force the governor’s hand.

But back to yesterday’s excitement. Here’s more of Hallenbeck’s account of the press conference saga from vt buzz:

Not long afterward – while I fumed about the accusations and Democratic legislators held a press conference of their own on the farm aid issue – Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs told us the governor wanted to see us again.

There, Douglas apologized for his comments. “It’s not characteristic, as I think you know,” he said.

I believe he’s right; not that it’s not characteristic, but in that the press corps “knows” it’s not. The fact is, the display was only surprising in it’s degree, not in it’s quality.

The reporters seem very taken aback – as all of us are – but for different reasons. The press corps is acting as though this was a split personality moment; something completely out of character. It goes completely against the narrative they’ve developed for him over the years.

But those of us who pay attention see this as quite consistent. In anything that hints of conflict or politics, Douglas gets nasty. Whether it’s off the cuff (click here to listen again to a debate with Scudder Parker), or after greater consideration (tagging Parker as “Mr. Property Tax” or Clavelle as a communist when he was so far ahead in the polls, nastiness could serve no imaginable purpose). Sometimes it seems he goes nasty every chance he gets.

This proclivity is a real electoral liability. The reason it hasn’t come into play is twofold; one, that the Vermont electorate still doesn’t check in until late in the election cycle, so they don’t have time to see and really engage with the pattern, seeing examples instead as anomolies.

And more importantly, two; that the Vermont media have decided he’s “Mr. Nice Guy” so his frequent petulance gets little coverage. That may change with the high-speed turnover in the Vermont press corps, especially with the absence of Douglas apologists such as Chris Graff and Darren Allen.

Back to the explosion above, though. Of the two thorns in Douglas’ side, the Bennington sick building is definitely the most serious. It affects him in an area he has electoral strength and casts him as the uncaring bureaucrat. There likely could (and should) be lawsuits to come. And the more Douglas tries to cast it in political terms (that it’s all a big plot of the Democrats and the media), the less able he seems to be to be to understand that these are actual human lives that are at play, not figures on a political chessboard.

In fact, the only reason we witnessed this display is Douglas’s colossally poor judgement in going down personally and talking to state workers on site. Douglas is at his best when he’s at the ribbon cuttings – where he can just smile, laugh, shake hands. This is when he comes off as really pleasant and downright chummy. But when an issue is involved, he can’t control his nasty streak. He blames others, makes snide remarks and puts people down.

And this meeting wasn’t a ribbon cutting. These people were scared for their health and angry that the state didn’t seem to care. When Douglas went into defensive mode, it was like gasoline on the fire – and that fire was still burning at yesterday’s press conference (and no, the public records hack certainly didn’t help either).

A perfect storm, maybe. A big surprise? Not so much.

So folks in the media may be shocked,shocked at what they’re characterizing as a Jekyll/Hyde moment.

But to those of us who’ve been paying attention, it’s just a matter of degree.

New legislation is circulating in the Statehouse calling for Bush’s impeachment under Section 603 of the Jefferson’s Manual (a la, the Rutland Resolution). From vtimpeach.com:

The bill needs as many co-sponsors as possible, so the call is out to contact your own state Representatives and ask them to sign on. Last year’s bill had about a dozen signers – most of whom are still in the legislature. Clearly these folks should be contacted again, but we shouldn’t stop there.

BIll Lippert (D-Hinesburg) is the Judiciary Chair, so its of particular importance that he be contacted by constituents. Leadership should hear from their voters as well.

Please check out the full piece for details on how you can help out. There will be a lot to say on this over the coming weeks (and Kagro X will want to chime in, as one of the national leaders on this effort), so I’ll hold off on any more for now.

Don’t trouble your beautiful minds, the federal government says Vermont Yankee is nothing to worry about. Don’t you feel better now?

Another new blog with anonymous “insiders” appears. This one’s a bit skimpy on the content, but it’s good – and the folks involved actually are plugged in. Check it out at www.vtscrapwood.blogspot.com.

It’s January 31st, a month into freshman US Rep. Peter Welch’s first term in Washington, breaking in a staff, familiarizing himself with the process, getting settled and acquainted with his colleagues, learning who’s who and what’s what in the middle of the biggest Washington power shift in 15 years.

And apparently, if you surf Vermont blogs (and yes, that includes the traditional media blogs), you’ll find he is all washed up. Done. Kaput. He’s already defeated by a Green candidate. He’s a phony. A Bush cheerleader. Turning his back on all his campaign promises.

It’s so obviously absurd, it’s actually started to get kind of funny, in an embarrassment-humor sort of way.

There seem to be two forces at play here. One is the sore loser contingent; our buddy Christopher Stewart who is still desperately fighting for his old boss Martha Rainville’s imagined honor by taking that weasely Welch down. Stewart (and his rhetorically and stylistically identical buddy at Welchwatch – McKenna or whoever it is) seems to spend his time promoting talking points that pivot on first grade logic, while trying to electronically cozy up to those selfsame reporters and left-wingers that he despises – all in the hopes that some of his Jon Lovitz-inspired repartee will actually pay off and get him his revenge, as well as that attention he so desperately craves (and it has already paid off with Freeps reporter Terri Hallenbeck, who is broadcasting their message farther and wider than they could on their own).

And on the other hand, we have the people on the left who’ve never been able to stand Welch. As far as they’re concerned, Welch was a failure before he even got the final returns on Election Day. This is partly because he runs with a ‘D’ after his name, but also because he seemed locked into virtual policy paralysis during his most recent stint as VT Senate President Pro-Tem out of pre-election fear of alienating voters. These folks aren’t just pre-emptively casting him as a failure sell-out, they’re thrilled out of their minds to do so (and equally chomping at the bit to cast anyone who might say “slow down a minute and think” as a similarly misbegotten sell-out right-winger).

Both groups seem to be focusing their attention on all the rest of the non-Republican crowd. The 99% of the left who, if they’ve even noticed all this goofiness, are probably scratching their heads wondering what all the ranting is about. The Welch-bashers get in the front door with all of us for one very important reason – that is, that we all are awake, engaged, and that means we have high standards for our elected officials. The truth is, we do expect Welch to be on the leading edge of the War discussion. And even though we know he just stepped into the whirlwind, every day that passes does leave us more and more unsettled that he hasn’t done more than sign on to others’ non-binding resolutions. In the Senate, there are now two proposals that would explicitly defund major military operations by dates certain – both of which have our senior Senator’s support as a co-sponsor. In light of these, action in the House seems woefully inadequate.

But whereas we all expect Welch to be on the leading edge, does anybody with half a brain really expect him to be a House leader? Only a month into this job? A month into DC? With a green staff and having had little time to build relationships, clout, or even a clear idea of where all the Capitol bathrooms are?

Please. That’s ridiculous on its face. It’d be great if he could, but that’s a lot to ask – let alone demand. And using that as a springboard to write his political epitaph is either poorly-thought-through political hackery, or delusional self-important nonsense.

I’m a citizen. I’m a lefty. You can expect me to pay close attention to what Welch does. You can expect me to be checking my watch on progress towards his taking a meaningful move towards defunding the war, pushing for universal health care. You can expect me to be less and less patient as that clock ticks on. You can expect me to share in the concern – even frustration – when things aren’t playing out the way I want to see them from his office. You can expect me to express those concerns on this blog and in private conversation, while supporting the efforts of places like MoveOn to put the pressure on him. You can expect to see that pressure grow if time keeps passing.

But don’t expect me to be an idiot. That costs extra.

UPDATE: Senator Feingold’s resolution was introduced today, and indeed, Senator Leahy is a co-sponsor. He is also a co-sponsor of Senator Obama’s legislation that would require all combat brigades to be redeployed by March 31, 2008. Check after the fold for instances in recent history where Congress has restricted funding for specific military operations or campaigns (and – surprise, surprise – two of the four listed targeted Clinton)

As much as activists are demanding otherwise, I and others have been assuming that the question of pulling congressional funding for the Iraq War wouldn’t come up until March – when the next supplemental funding request from the Pentagon was likely to show up. But Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to bring it up now. He is proposing legislation that would prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. Here’s Feingold explaining his legislation:

The Judiciary Committee Chair is, of course, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, which means he’ll have a big role in how this plays out. I’m confident he’ll do the right thing, but he should hear from his constituents in support. Give him a holler if you can at 202-224-4242 or 1-800-642-3193.

Instances where the Congress has restricted funding for specific military operations or campaigns (from Sen. Feingold’s website, linked at the top of this diary):

On numerous occasions, Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to limit the President’s ability to escalate existing military engagements. Here are just a few examples:

  * Cambodia – In late December 1970, Congress passes the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.

  * Vietnam – In late June 1973, Congress passes the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1973. This legislation contains language cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam after August 15, 1973.

  * Somalia – In November 1993, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes a provision that prohibits funding after March 31, 1994 for military operations in Somalia, except for a limited number of military personnel to protect American diplomatic personnel and American citizens, unless further authorized by Congress.

  * Bosnia – In 1998, Congress passes the Defense Authorization Bill, with a provision that prohibits funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President makes certain assurances.

According to his office, our senior Senator is continuing his full court press today, including:

• A hearing for today by the judiciary Committee on the constitutional powers of the Legislative and Executive branches as they concern war.
• Reintroducing his National Guard Empowerment Act, which gives the Guard a seat at the table when it comes to their deployments. Hopefully, with this topic on his mind, he will also move quickly to undo some of the other damage done through last Septembers Defense authorization, specifically (in Leahy’s words):
  

  It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations.

• Preparing for tomorrow’s Judiciary hearing with Lee Hamilton and others on the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations concerning police training and establishing a workable judiciary in Iraq.

Go get em, Pat. Remind ’em Vermont sent ya.

Scary stuff:

A state computer containing the names, Social Security Numbers and bank account information for 70,000 Vermonters has been hacked into in an automated computer attack that puts their personal information at risk for misuse, the state said Monday.

Customers from eight additional banks and credit unions, representing about 2,800 individuals, were also affected, the state said. They are: the Central Vermont Public Service Employees Credit Union; First Brandon National Bank; Federal Family Credit Union, Granite Hills Credit Union, Merchants Bank, Northfield Savings Bank, Opportunities Credit Union and the Vermont State Employees Credit Union, the state said.

Theoretically, this effects individuals whose names were recorded in a database because they owed child support. However, if you have an account at the New England Federal Credit Union based in Williston, you might want to sit up and take notice. On a couple occasions in recent years, the NEFCU did large scale dumps of data to the state for them to match their targets, instead of doing the sort themselves and just dumping the results. If you have an account dating back to 2005 at NEFCU, it’s likely your information was vulnerable.

My three year old celebrated his birthday by getting into my email client and replying to my emails. Blogger Morgan Brown got a strange email, Welch Communications Director Andrew Savage got a blank email, and State Dem Chair Ian Carleton received an email with words of wisdom .jm ,n n m oikhmop. Some might not find any substantive difference between these messages and emails that actually come from me…

From my kiddo to less mature individuals, marginally socialized talk radio yapper Michael Savage has this to say about Bernie (via Media Matters, here’s the audio clip):

On the January 25 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage attacked Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT), saying, “Kiss my behind, you psycho,” and “Screw you, you jealous loser.” Savage also called Sanders “a rat,” “a bum,” and “a dirty socialist” and told him to “go to hell.”

Sometimes, you can really judge a person by the quality of their enemies.

House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Martha Heath (D-Westford) must be wondering what deity she offended. News broke last week that a mandated appropriation for education has been simply left out of the last few budgets, and today comes wrangling over whether or not a seeming over-appropriation for senior care programs should be diverted to other programs. Big fun. Meanwhile, the Governor’s office basically responds with the “we don’t know nuthin’, we just work here” defense.

If you haven’t listened to the latest Philip Baruth/Alex Ball/Neil Jensen “Audio Dream Theater,” stop what you’re doing and go listen. Even funnier than the first one!

Why haven’t I ever linked to Dohiyi Mir before? A quick search reveals that I haven’t ever. Huh. Well, go check out NTodd’s State of the Union speech drinking game.

Rep. John Conyers’ (D-MI) single-payer health care bill – now HR 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act, (Medicare For All) – has been reintroduced. This from Health Care Now:

The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American-styled national insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care program that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans, guaranteed by law, will have access to the highest quality and cost effective health care services regardless of ones employment, income, or health care status.

The mental block so many big business supporters have on this issue still amazes me. The freakish skyrocketing costs of health care are one of the biggest expenses cutting into corporate bottom lines. In terms of small businesses and start ups, health care costs can be crippling. Yet a business culture that demands handouts and free rides from government all the time can’t get its confused ideological head out of its ass long enough to see that universal healthcare would be among the most advantageous “handouts” they could hope for. From HCN again:

In 2005, without reform, the average employer who offers coverage will contribute $2,600 to health care per employee ( for much skimpier benefits). Under HR 676, the average costs to employers for an employee making $30,000 per year will be reduced to $1,155 per year, less than $100 per month.

Now make no mistake – this bill will not pass – this time, but the journey of a hundred miles starts with a single step, and I firmly believe progressive legislation like this must be proposed, even if its chances are slim to none. Getting it out there gives it credibility, starts discussions, and that can snowball.

The bill already has 45 co-sponsors, including the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel, which may give it a chance at actually getting a hearing, given that Health is a Ways and Means subcommittee. Here is a link to the current list of co-sponsors (and no, Peter Welch is not on the list. Time to harass him, methinks: 202-225-4115 and 888-605-7270). For those curious about the funding mechanism, here is another link to HCN’s page on that piece of the legislation.

An extra, more personal note: When you look at the sponsors of this legislation, you’ll notice that they are all Democrats. And yet, when the bill fails, the cry will inevitably be that “the Democrats” killed it.

Bull. Some “Democrats” may well kill it, but broadly saying “the Democrats” killed it (assuming it dies) is no more or less accurate than saying “the Democrats are all for single-payer!” given the sponsor list. If you’re activiely promoting a third party, this kind of one-sided, deceptive rhetoric may serve a purpose. Similarly if you’re striking some kind of internet pose as Vermont’s only free-thinking maverick, then yeah, go for it.

If, however, you’re trying to actually, you know – achieve universal health care, we would do well to use the stick on those politicians (of any party) that stand in the way, and use the carrot on those that don’t. Blanket condemnations that hit friend and foe equally – however convenient for pose-striking – alienate your allies and don’t help the actual cause.

< /rant>

From Freyne Land:

Saw the doc at UHC as soon as possible upon returning to Beautiful Burlap. Didn’t get my doc, the one who brought me back from double pneumonia in 1995, but others on his team. (In, fact, my old doc, age 43, called me two days ago to tell me he’s ceasing his medical practice.)

Anyway, it’s been bing-bam-boom after that. Quickly to blood tests and a CAT scan and biopsy and the discovery of a lymphoma – a cancerous tumor. Just like that. The oncologist, the one who specializes in this sort of stuff, looks me in the eye and calls it “75-80 percent” curable.

Hang in there and kick its ass, Peter. We need ya.