One of the best essays I’ve read lately on the significant number of reality challenged individuals in this country and those who exploit them:

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

An Army of Trumans

…the Right has constructed its own Bubble World, a sort of political Truman Show complete with its own facts and rules (albeit facts and rules that are constantly changing based on political expediency). The writers, directors, and actors in this conservative version of Seahaven are the legions of GOP politicians, operatives, and conservative media outlets that relentlessly push this politically expedient alternative reality, and the Trumans are the millions of regular Americans who don’t realize the joke is on them…

…In this alternative universe, the facts are literally whatever the political consultants say they should be. Whatever resonates with the focus group. If you’re working on behalf of Wall Street lobbyists to kill a bill that would impose more accountability on Wall Street, you simply accuse those who support the bill of doing Wall Street’s bidding. It doesn’t matter that this is the opposite of the truth and is, in fact, exactly what you’re doing. While these facts might matter to people in the empirical world, the facts in Bubble World are whatever the right wing wants them to be….

Go. Read the whole thing.

This resonates. We’ve witnessed it:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) – health care town hall – Jefferson City (August 26, 2009)

Teabaggers: when the Democrats don’t give them a mic (August 18, 2009)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): open forum in Hillsboro – photos (August 11, 2009)

In an interview this morning on radio KZRG, Roy Blunt stated that he thought that the Arizona immigration law was “just common sense.” It’s aimed at folks who are here illegally, isn’t it? Other highlights:

Blunt’s biggest (only?) “on-going fight” with Bush was to take issue with the old softie’s warm and fuzzy approach to undocumented workers.

While dancing in the best terpsichorean political style around the interviewer’s question about whether or not the congressman agreed that President Obama was “promoting lawlessness” when he called the Arizona law misguided, Blunt allowed as to how Obama was “even more misguided” than Bush.

According to Blunt, Obama’s statement was intended to “send a message” to the undocumented that he is on their side and not on the side of rule by law, by extension indicating that it is misguided to “enforce the laws of America.” Blunt could have saved himself lots of trouble and just said straight out, without all the circumlocution, that he agrees with the KZRG spokesman.

Oddly, Blunt was neither asked nor did he volunteer any opinions about the constitutionality of the law and its potential to violate the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. The failure to give due consideration to the obvious constitutional issues was especially odd given Rep. Blunt’s effort to pander to Tea Partiers and good ol’ boys, who, as we all know, have their collective panties in a bunch over issues of constitutionality – or what they have been told are constitutional issues – most recently in terms of Obama’s perceived encroachment against their freedom to die without access to health care.

But then, strangely enough, neither do the Tea Partiers themselves seem too worried about defending freedom this time around:  

How long before a right wingnut politician in Missouri jumps on the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 [pdf] bandwagon? Not very.

Reporter Sloane Heller at KSHB-TV in Kansas City is reporting this morning that Representative Mark Parkinson (r) is intent on filing legislation similar to Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, requiring individuals provide proof of citizenship to law enforcement based on “reasonable suspicion.”

[Kobach]…professor here at UMKC actually helped write the law in Arizona. So, uh, it’s possible, we don’t know, that he could actually help state Representative Mark Parkinson out of St. Charles. Now we talked to Parkinson’s aide yesterday. He gave us some new information about Parkinson’s plan for reform on immigration. Right now Parkinson is backing a bill that would make it a felony to transport illegal immigrants. What he wants to do, he wants to substitute that bill and create one that matches Arizona’s new law. Of course that law gives police the ability to ask for documentation if they suspect somebody is here illegally. Now Parkinson is hoping, uh, to introduce his new bill before the session ends. Uh, critics, of course, have been coming out and talking, the last couple of weeks, saying that this new law in Arizona encourages racial profiling…

If Mark Parkinson (r) has his way Missouri law enforcement officials will have to add B-movie dialog to their repertoire.

In an earlier report Heller also stated that this would be offered as a substitute for HB 2449. HB 2449, in its current form:

HB 2449 Creates various crimes for trafficking, concealing, haboring, sheltering, or transporting illegal aliens

Sponsor: Parkinson, Mark A. (16) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) ……….etal. LR Number: 5481L.02I

Last Action: 04/20/2010 – Referred: International Trade and Immigration (H)

HB2449

Next Hearing: INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND IMMIGRATION

Date: Wednesday, 04/28/2010 Time: 5:00p.m. or upon afternoon adjournment

Location: Hearing Room 7

Executive session may follow.

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Missouri House proposes immigration reform

….The measure was proposed on April 1, and is the only bill proposed this year that deals directly with the criminal enforcement of illegal immigration.

The sponsor, State Rep. Mark Parkinson, R-St. Charles, said the bill has “nothing to do with Arizona,” and called it an “economic issue.” He cited the state’s unemployment figures, which were at 9.5 percent in March, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mr. Parkinson said the bill would protect undocumented workers from exploitation by employers, and would assert the state’s stance against federal immigration reform, which has yet to be proposed.

“This is going to send a message to the White House,” Mr. Parkinson said. “Missourians don’t want amnesty….”

“…he [Parkinson] wants to substitute that bill and create one that matches Arizona’s new law…”

“…nothing to do with Arizona…” Really. Which side of your mouth did that come out of?

And what does the Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona (which is on the state’s southern border with Mexico) think of the law?:

The Dupnik rebellion: Pima’s top cop says “no” to SB 1070

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) – Pima County’s top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona’s controversial crackdown on illegal immigration.  Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 “racist,” “disgusting,” and “unnecessary.”

Speaking Tuesday morning with KGUN9’s Steve Nunez, Dupnik made it clear that while he will not comply with the provisions of the new law, nor will he let illegal immigrants go free.  “We’re going to keep doing what we’ve been doing all along,” Dupnik said.  “We’re going to stop and detain these people for the Border Patrol.”

The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court.  SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn’t comply with the law.  But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. “So we’re kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation. It’s just a stupid law.”

Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. “If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they’re going to do it. They’ll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that’s not working  as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney.”

Remember, Pima County is on the border with Mexico.

So, how long before teabaggers flood town halls screaming about a ‘police state’. [sound of crickets]

“Bank of America, Bad for America!” chanted the crowd gathered in the shadow of the impregnable, forbidding Bank of America tower in Kansas City on Tuesday. A coalition of progressive groups brought a couple of hundred demonstrators to KC on Tuesday. The plan there, as in other cities on Tuesday, was to soften up “Bad for America” for Wednesday’s massive demonstration at the annual stockholders’ meeting in Charlotte, N.C. The Bad for America slogan was for openers. The rally goers had lots more:

“Bailout. No thanks.

Bust up. Big Banks.”

“Predatory lender.

Criminal offender.”

“Big banks, you suck.

You’ll do anything for a buck.”

“Who got the money, money?

Who got the money, money?

You got the money, money.

We got the bill.”

Okay, it’s doggerel. But does a pack of greedy dogs deserve anything better?

Too bad yesterday that we didn’t have a fly (with a video camera) on the local executive’s wall, because it must have chafed the suit and tie that he had to tolerate the de classe crowd on the public sidewalk in front of his domain. (As a group, we had to stay off their property. I ventured onto the plaza to take pictures and was politely instructed by a cop to move back to the sidewalk.) Anyway, a video of the exec’s remarks about us would probably have electrified a crowd that was already galvanized. Mr. Bank Exec had to play it gracious, though. When the hoi polloi wanted into the bank to deliver a letter with its demands, he ordered that the group’s representatives be allowed in with no fuss. Otherwise, we’d have just hung around on the sidewalk chanting and showing our signs to the passing traffic.

Robin Acree of GRO was gutsy and funny leading the rally. She called out the CEO of B of A, Brian Moynihan, for heading an operation responsible for more foreclosures than anybody else. She pointed to a picture parody of Don Early, head of the payday loan company QC Holdings. In Missouri, those bloodsuckers charge an average of 431 percent annually on loans.

And guess who the third largest shareholder in QC Holdings might be. Its name begins with Bank and ends with America.

 

Robin told the story of attending a hearing about payday loan companies in Hannibal–a meeting that was also attended by the Missouri payday loan industry spokeshole, Tom Linafelt. Out on the parking lot after the hearing, she heard him say to one of his buddies, “That group that was badmouthing us, that’s those people from Mexico, MO. They’re out to take us down.” Robin grinned at the memory and told the crowd, “Too right!”

Notice at the end of the video that some of us have more youth and bounce than some of the rest of us.

After having its say at Bad for America, the crowd moved on to the KC offices of QC Holdings, which is in an office building so expensive that the sign in front is marble with real gold hammered into the words “Corporate Woods.” QC Holdings is on the fifteenth floor. That’s private property. And a security guard with an attitude promptly said, in his snarkiest voice, that he was calling the cops. Once the cops came, they politely asked the group to leave, and the crowd departed.

Step a few presumptuous toes onto their private property, and you find out how gracious the well heeled really are.

Note:  (4/27/2010, 4:40 p.m.) This posting has been substantially edited so as not to duplicate the content of an earlier posting, “Wash U Students Kick Ash.”

(Above: Clips from the Great Coal Debate, April 27, 2010; see entire debate here)

Tuesday evening, Fred Palmer, VP of of Government Relations for Peabody Coal, and Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign squared off to debate the pros and cons of coal-based energy before an audience of more than 500 people at Washington University’s Graham Chapel. The “Great Coal Debate,” moderated by Bryan Walsh, Environmental Correspondent for Time Magazine, was an outgrowth of student concerns that the University’s embrace of the Peabody-funded Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization might serve coal industry anti-regulation goals as much as the University’s research goals.

Sarah Jo has summarized the the proceedings below. Take a look at her reactions which were spot on.

I will only add to Sarah Jo’s impressions that for me the real icing on the cake was Fred Palmer’s answer (or as Nilles put it, his non-answer) to the moderator’s question about whether or not Palmer believes that climate change was caused by human activity. After a lot of careful hemming and hawing during which he allowed that a lot of smart people, President Obama and Washington University Chancellor Mark Wrighton among them, do believe in anthropogenic climate change, and the respect with which Peabody coal holds these smart people means that the company will work to reduce CO2 emissions, he took refuge in a straw man argument. He declared that he, and, one assumes by extension, Peabody coal, is not inclined to trade the welfare of people right now in order to fix some hypothetical event in the future – as if an either/or scenario were the only possibility.  

Kinda says it all – big, important business people who understand strategic planning don’t believe in taking a huge scientific consensus seriously when weighing future outcomes that affect public welfare. Of course, maybe this live-for-today attitude just might mean that the public welfare is not what moves Peabody coal?

Washington University students in St. Louis know their stuff when it comes to dirty energy, but they are especially agitated about what’s going on right under their noses. Peabody Energy and Arch Coal, two of the largest coal companies in the U.S., are both headquartered in St. Louis.

When they each donated $5 million (along with Ameren UE’s $2 million) to set up the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization on the Wash U campus, students saw the reality behind the smog mask.

Last November, the Student Union passed a resolution urging the University to change the name of the consortium because “clean coal” is a lie.  Good for them !  When the University sponsored a theatrical “symposium” presenting the benefits of “green coal,” (no, that’s not a typo) the students answered with a counter rally of their own.

Yesterday, the Wash U Student Union sponsored a debate between Bruce Nilles, leader of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, and Fred Palmer,  Senior VP of Government Relations at Peabody Energy.  Prior to yesterday’s event, Bruce Nilles had an op-ed in the student newspaper presenting the case against coal in a nutshell.

When the two debaters came out on stage at Graham Chapel, I kind of felt sorry for Fred Palmer.  But the old geezer held up his end of the bargain pretty well considering the audience was filled with anti-coal people.  Mr. Palmer is originally from Phoenix and showed off his cowboy boots.  He let it slip that he feels trapped here in “the middle of the country.”  Poor guy.  But he spends lots of time in D.C. and China selling his smokescreen of carnival tricks too.

According to Mr. Palmer, coal is responsible for all the wonderful things humans enjoy.  Instead of carrying bundles of twigs on our backs to heat our homes, we can just turn on the furnace and VOILA, the magic of electricity warms us, keeps the lights on, powers our computers and makes life better for people everywhere.  I kid you not.  He actually said that caring for people is Peabody’s first priority.  

Comparing modern power plants to bundles of twigs is one of those “the hand is quicker than the eye” carnival illusions lobbyists are so good at.  Keep the rubes distracted while you dazzle them with nonsense.

Keep in mind that Missouri gets 83.5% of its energy from those black rocks loaded with carbon, making it one of the brownest states in the nation.  Keep in mind that coal ash is full of deadly stuff that contaminates the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Bruce Nilles reminded us that the only reason coal is the cheapest source of energy is because the true cost is externalized to the general population.  E.g., the three coal plants in the St. Louis area create $750 million each year in health care and clean up costs.  As student leader Kady McFadden asked in the introduction to the debate, “Is cheap energy worth the cost?”

In response to Palmer’s claim that coal energy is good for America, Nilles asked, if so, why isn’t West Virginia one of the richest states in the union instead of one of the poorest?

If audience members expected the Peabody spokesman to be embarrassed about the damage done by mountain top mining or the explosion that killed 29 Americans in West Virginia recently, no need to hold our breath.  Palmer defused that awkward topic right away by saying Peabody hasn’t mined in West VA in three years and he felt really bad about those poor guys who died in a Massey mine.  His chart showing Peabody’s safety record made my heart leap with pride, and I think I heard strains of “America, the Beautiful” wafting throught the open windows.

When asked about progress being made with alternative forms of energy, Nilles pointed to Ontario, Los Angeles and Wisconsin.  Because Canadians all pay for health care from one big pool of money, they see the direct impact of pollution on their medical bills.  They are phasing out all of their coal-fired plants.  There are no coal plants in California, but LA has been buying its power from out-of-state plants. They’ve recently decided to bring that economic piece of the pie back to their own city.  Wisconsin state buildings had been using coal from Wyoming but are switching to wind and solar in order to create jobs for their own people.

Climate legislation is “on life support” in Washington, according to Nilles, because the dirty energy companies are putting the screws to Congress. The EPA is supposedly considering a move to label coal ash “hazardous” which would be a real game changer.  Sen. McCaskill is on record as being opposed to the new designation.  We don’t even have to wonder where Sen. Bond stands on this, do we?  Call Sen. McCaskill.  Who knows?  Maybe a ton people calling her might outweigh a ton of coal money. Check out EarthJustice’s web page on coal ash with link to EPA.

 Watch the Great Coal Debate here and be prepared for future actions by Wash U students. On May 21st, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu will address the graduating class.  Fred Palmer claims that Chu is “on board” with the new “green coal” technology.  We’ll see.

So says the headline on Political Fix. I think it’s probably about time we step up our attacks on Jay Nixon.

From what I understand, historic preservation tax credits were capped last year at the current level of spending. So making them the target of cuts in the runaway levels of tax credits given out each year is either stupid or disingenuous or both. And two thumbs down for playing supporters of the historic tax credit against supporters of public education in what Nixon calls a “zero sum game.”

It’s not a zero sum game. The historic preservation tax credits provide a lot of bang for the buck in revitalizing older neighborhoods not only in the cores of urban areas like St. Louis and Kansas City, but also small towns all over the state who have seen the storefronts from their old Main Streets vanish with neglect. A better local economy with better neighborhoods is far better for public schools than a slightly bigger state government teat.

Count me among a growing group of people who aren’t very excited about Nixon’s re-election campaign in 2012. I loathe Peter Kinder, but given Nixon’s poor track record so far, it’s going to be difficult for me to get out to knock doors and make phone calls on Nixon’s behalf. And I’m not alone.