Pirate Fish image courtesy of the CotFSM.

A bill, introduced today by Representative Andrew Koenig (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1587

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES KOENIG (Sponsor), BRATTIN, LICHTENEGGER, BAHR, HIGDON, CRAWFORD AND WIELAND (Co-sponsors).

5248L.01I     D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 170, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding evolution.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 170.335, to read as follows:

           170.335. 1. The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, superintendents of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

           2. Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent of schools, or school system administrator, nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught within the course curriculum schedule.

           3. This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and this section shall not be construed to promote any theistic or nontheistic religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of theistic or nontheistic religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against theistic or nontheistic religion. Scientific information includes physical evidence and logical inferences based upon evidence.

           4. No later than the start of the 2015-16 school year, the department of elementary and secondary education shall notify all public school superintendents of the provisions of this section. Each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within his or her school system a copy of this section.

[emphasis in original]

And Pastafarians are going to want in on the act (from their past):

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years….

[….]

[emphasis added]

Anyone want to bet they won’t press the issue?

Previously:

HB 291: keping misooree stoopit (January 24, 2013)

Rep. Rick Brattin (r): cdesign proponentsists (February 9, 2013)

I always think it’s interesting to look at the ways that our state legislators find to pass the time in Jefferson City. State Rep. Andrew Koenig (R-88), for instance, has been a busy boy. He has sponsored a small list of odious bills that have – mostly – gone nowhere. His legislative efforts this year have included efforts to pave the way for teaching creationist “science” (HB 1276), compelling folks to present photo ID to receive food stamps (HB1903), and abolishing the income tax (HJR 740).

Rep. Koenig has been more successful with bills he has sponsored that are intended to restrict abortion rights. He put forward HB1274, which was given a public hearing yesterday and won first-round approval in the GOP dominated House by a 116-34 vote. It would add obstacles to the use of RU-486:

The legislation would require the physician administering RU-486 to have clinical privileges at a nearby hospital, as well as privileges to intervene with surgery if necessary at a hospital or the abortion clinic where the drug was given. It also would require physicians who prescribe abortion-inducing drugs to carry an additional medical malpractice insurance policy of at least $1 million per occurrence and $3 million annually for injury or death of a child born alive after an attempted abortion.

Abortifacient drugs seem to drive the forced-birth crowd crazy because they’re safe,* easy and can be employed in relative privacy. That’s why Koenig’s had to use creative dodges like the malpractice insurance provision – a strategy he had earlier employed when he put forward an amendment attached to a healthcare insurance bill, (HB1890), that would force doctors who perform surgical abortions to pay more for malpractice insurance. That amendment was adopted and the insurance bill was sent to the Senate.

Koenig makes no bones that his motivation is nothing more than to attack legal abortions, declaring that, “although we can’t straight up outlaw it, I’d like it to be regulated and limited.”  Some legislators noted the irony of Koenig’s newfound enthusiasm for government regulation since he has, in the past, been vocal about repudiating government regulations. Of course, such rational observations don’t take into account the holy war mind set characteristic of anti-abortion zealots, which Koenig puts on display in this video:

The wide-eyed Koenig seems utterly gob-smacked by his conviction of “life begining at conception.” (Why, one wonders, isn’t he equally up in arms every time a carrot – demonstrably alive and growing – is yanked untimely from the earth?) Perhaps someone should suggest to Koenig that the abstract issue of “life” isn’t the issue – not even when it’s human life. The question of when a developing life should be protected is a question that remains subject to speculation and the answers, even among religious people, differ widely. It is certainly not a question that we should permit Koenig and the fanatics he represents to legislate for the rest of us.

* NOTE: RU-486 (Mifepristone) has been fully tested and approved by the FDA in the U.S. and has been approved for use in 29 other countries. Over 1.52 million women have used the drug and problems have been vanishingly rare and often attributable to improper use or other peripheral factors. Nevertheless, the anti-abortion cabal tries to justify restrictions such as those proposed by Rep. Koenig with false assertions, such as the statement made by Joe Ortwerth, Executive Director of the Missouri Family Policy Council, who claimed in yesterday’s hearing that “this is a drug that’s very, very risky to the mom.”

Addenda:  Did you notice that when Ortworth tries to talk about risk, he uses the word “mom” rather than “woman”? Condescending, reductive and indicative of the relative worth accorded to women – of course, if “the woman” is able to exercise her rights and get hold of RU486 she wouldn’t be “the mom,” which gets us right to the heart of the issue.

Today I got one of those surveys our state representatives occasionally send around, ostensibly to solicit our views on the issues. Unfortunately, my GOP representative, Andrew Koenig, is an inhabitant of the far reaches of the right wing, and that fact is reflected in his survey questions (although, to be fair, when compared to the surveys distributed by my federal representative, Todd Akin, Rep. Koenig’s efforts are only mildly tricky).  One very simple question, however, sent chills down my spine:

There has been legislation proposed in other state legislatures to ban abortions if a heartbeat can be detected.

7. How do you feel abut these legislative actions?

–I Support

–I Oppose

–They are not a Function of State Government

–No Opinion.

Bear in mind that Koenig sits on the House’s Children and Families Committee – where he could do lots of harm in this area. Is he feeling out his constituents to learn what kind of brownie points he’d score if he pushed this particularly onerous abortion restriction? Will this be the next anti-abortion move from the Children and Families Committee next session? (And, just to satisfy my personal curiosity, where is he going with the question about whether or not abortion restrictions are a function of state government?)

Such a heartbeat bill would essentially prohibit abortions any time after 18-24 days post conception, when an embryonic heartbeat can first be detected. It would effectively ban a legal, medical procedure that should be freely available to women. Many women do not even know that they are pregnant at such an early stage.

The other state legislature that Koenig refers to is Ohio where a heartbeat bill has been wending its way through the legislative process since last February. If it is finally passed, it will be the most restrictive law in the nation.

The proposed Ohio law is so extreme that it has ignited controversy even among anti-abortion adherents. Ohio Right to Life does not support the legislation because they believe it unlikely to withstand a court challenge, and they worry that its failure to do so could set the anti-abortion movement back considerably and prefer not to risk it. Instead, they would rather continue their current strategy of nibbling away at reproductive rights a little at time until they have finally, unobtrusively, eaten the whole thing. The executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio agrees that if the law were to pass, it would be held up in the courts for a very long time.

While not as severe as the “personhood” amendment that has been proposed in Mississippi – which would grant legal protections to an egg from the moment of fertilization, raising questions about everything from contraception to in vitro fertilization – a heartbeat bill would be very bad news for Missouri’s women and, at the very least, would divert legislative energy that could be better directed toward resolving the state’s serious economic problems. We can only hope that Koenig’s query represents a trial balloon that goes up and never comes down again. We’ve all got much more important things to worry about right now.

I was struck by something that Digby posted today on the DailyKos:

Voting isn’t just about making good things happen for yourself and your family.  It’s about voting against  things that will make your lives worse. And if this Republican party — at this point in history — wins big over the next two years, the lives of average Americans will definitely be worse.

No sooner had I read this than came face to face  I received an email that brought it home to me; I received a newsletter from my State Representative, the Boy Scout from GOP Hell, little Andy Koenig (who is, sadly, unopposed this year). His big news? He and his buddies  are going to try again with that GOP golden oldie, the “Fair” tax.  Their rationale:

When designing a tax structure we would never pick the system we have today. Taxes do damage to whatever you are taxing so we need to pick a system that does the least amount of damage. If you tax productivity you will have a society that is less productive. The tax that does the least amount of damage is a consumption tax.

The least amount of damage! Although, if  you’re wealthy and don’t mind being subsidized by the middle class and poor, perhaps you agree. Specifically, this soon to be revivified version of HJR 71, which was sponsored by Baby Andy last session, would do the following:

1. The individual income tax will be eliminated over 5 years.

2. Corporate income tax will be eliminated in 1 year.

3. The Corporate Franchise tax will be eliminated in 1 year.

4. The sales tax will be capped at 7% and be broadened in scope to keep the

rate low.

5. Service providers such as plumbing, painting, and lawyers, will have a sales tax.

6. Sales tax on used goods will be eliminated. (Used cars, used boats, used items)

7. Each Missourian will receive a prebate. (A prebate is an estimated return based on the money spent in sales tax to achieve $2,800 dollars in tax free spending per person or $11,200 for a family of four.

8. Exemptions will be made for business to business transactions, insurance (includes a reverse exemption), tuition for K-Higher Education, gasoline, and charitable donations.

Currently state sales taxes are 4.225%; this tax may be augmented by counties and cities so that total sales taxes in the city of St. Louis are 9.421%; in Franklin County, 7.975%; in St. Charles, 8.40%; etc. Will city and county taxes still be appended to the 7% sales tax proposed above or will they have to be adjusted to come in under the cap as HJR 71 specified? The effects could be unbelievably painful – particularly if, as seems quite likely, Rex Sinquefield’s gift to his wealthy cohorts, Proposition A, becomes law.

Certainly, although the plan Koenig lays out promises lots of goodies, he doesn’t deign to discuss revenue, which is probably all to the good since, from his supply side of the economic chasm, it would all be speculative fantasy. The Missouri Budget project estimated that had the prototype for this legislation, HJR 71, passed last session, in order to maintain the revenue stream, Missouri sales tax would have had to be raised to 11% and all services would have had to be taxed – a level of uniform taxation that, as that the Missouri Budget Project points out, no other state has enacted. Of course, since the folks who’ll get soaked under this proposal aren’t those who finance political careers, it may not be such a big deal for dear little Andy.

I’m guessing that the best solution according to our baby GOPer would likely be spending cuts – and we have all seen what GOP budget cutting mania has done to the state over the past year. There’s little left to cut without destroying the viability of the state – although, on second thought, that might be the goal – a little shock doctrine and Missouri could become very attractive for corporations who want to exploit the suffering to set up sweat-shops.

Koenig’s arguments for dragging this moribund idea into the light once again is the perennial chestnut that states without an income tax experience greater economic growth than those that tax income. This argument has been exploded time and again, but proponents of the fair tax keep dredging it up with only slight variations. Arguing against HJR 71 earlier this year, Amy Blouin of the Missouri Budget Project, offered detailed refutations of such claims, concluding that:

What the data do indicate is that there is no correlation between state individual and corporate income taxes and economic growth. State rates of economic growth and taxes vary considerably and there is no common pattern to make assumptions from. Many recent national studies back this up.

To bolster his arguments, Koenig does try to offer proof of his contentions; he cites a study issued by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, Rich States, Poor States, by Arthur B. Lafer (yes, that Lafer), Stephen Moore, and Jonathan Williams, a standard in supply-side circles, which attempts to correlate states’ economic competitiveness with income tax rates.

If you were to take a look at that study, you could not be blamed if you were to experience a sense of bemusement.  The relatively high position occupied by a state like Wyoming compared to New York’s low competitiveness ranking suggests that perhaps the authors bias their results by asking only part of the question that needs to be answered; income tax alone is not really the only determinant in play though this and similar studies operate from that assumption. As the political scientist and statistician, Andrew Gelman, notes apropos this study, “economic performance can be defined in different ways.” and, if one wishes to obtain a complete picture, definitely should be.

Such considerations, of course, seem to be beyond poor, ideologically driven Andy and many of his pals in Jefferson City (although to be fair, HJR 71 failed even the GOP smell test). Unfortunately, as I noted above, we can’t send Andy home this election, but we can try our best to make sure that he doesn’t have the back-up he would need to wreck this kind of havoc on the already ailing Missouri tax system. At the very least, with enough Democrats in office, we wouldn’t have to have this silly discussion over and over again.

The title for “worst bill/amendment loss” has been won by Andrew Koenig. Koenig (R-) proposed an amendment to HB 2007 (Budget bill for Econ Dev, Insurance, Transportation, etc) to cut every dollar from the Division of Tourism Supplemental Revenue Fund (all $19,339,812). The vote total was 136 to 15

Members voting for the bill: Jason Brown (termed out, running for a county office IIRC), Cynthia Davis (primarying a Senator), Mike Dethrow (termed out), Ed Emery (termed out, running for the Senate), Doug Ervin (termed out), Tim Flook (unopposed for re-election, so far), Doug Funderburk (opposed by Democrat Richard Trueba), Tim Jones (unopposed so far), Andrew Koenig (unopposed so far), Will Kraus (running for the state Senate), Cole McNary (unopposed so far), Bryan Pratt (termed out, running for the state senate), Marilyn Ruestman (termed out), Clint Tracy (running for presiding judge in Cape County), and Kevin Wilson (termed out).

And no Democrat has filed in the 8th Senate District (where Pratt and Kraus are running). I’m pretty sure that tourist locations exist in that district.

All in all, this budget session is kind of like the Meat Loaf song from the mid-1990s. They would do anything for love, but they won’t do that. Because they’re not totally stupid. Congrats to the other 70ish members of the Republican Caucus for doing the obvious thing.

After some particularly entertaining GOP antic, have you ever speculated that some of our state Republican legislators aren’t “all that” in the thinking department? Consider the case of GOP rope-a-dope in training, State Rep., Andrew Koenig (R-88). Koenig is a fresh-faced young man who looks as if he were custom designed for the role of aspiring young politician – but appearances are often deceiving.

During his freshman term, Koenig has done little to distinguish himself other than toe the GOP line, at least until his recent public championship of lowest common denominator climate-change denial. Now, in his latest constituent newsletter, he is attempting to present himself as a David standing, slingshot in hand, before the federal health care reform Goliath.

And what is it about the federal legislation, specifically HR3200, that so upsets Koenig – apart from its length – 395,096 words as he breathlessly proclaims?  The crux of the matter seems to be that our tender young Republican shoot thinks that the House bill would preclude individual choice:

This bloated bill is harmful to the people of Missouri and I believe in taking the steps necessary to prevent this so-called reform from telling Missourians what health care plan they must use.

Poor Koenig doesn’t seem to have a clue that this claim is patently false. Although health care coverage would be mandated, individuals would be free to choose their provider. Perhaps his fear of all those words kept him from actually reading the relevant sections?  

Or perhaps our baby pol was a little too uncritical about the propaganda making the rounds this year – such as the lengthy email claiming that a proposed Health Care Commission would dictate individual health care plans, a story Politifact rates as a “pants-on-fire” fib. I guess we should count our blessings – at least he isn’t harranguing us about “death panels.”

                                       

It is a shame, though, that nobody has set Koenig straight since he seems to share the goals of many progressives to introduce more competition into our system:

I believe that choice in health care is important. Without it, there is no competition between health care providers to ensure the best care possible.Choosing a healthcare plan that best fits the needs of an individual or business is an important privilege I intend to protect.

Didn’t anyone explain to Rep. Koenig how the now probably defunct public option would have spurred competition while leaving our right to choose private insurers intact?

And if someone does set him straight, perhaps they ought to also explain that his preferred tool for saving Missourians from the health care bugaboo, HJR 57, which proposes an amendment to the state constitution that would allow Missourians to nullify the federal legislation,  violates the U.S. constitution. Additionally, of course, while HJR 57, which Koenig is co-sponsoring, does address mandates, since Koenig seems to be overwhelmingly concerned with choice of plan, the provisions most relevant to his imaginary concerns necessarily address a non-existent problem.

To clinch my case for Koenig’s rope-a-dope status, bear in mind that he is getting all worked up to fight health care legislation that will successfully insure huge numbers of previously uninsured people. In Missouri, whose citizens he putatively represents, there are currently 670,000 uninsured adults under the age of 65. Worse yet, 65,000 were added to the uninsured lists just this year while little Andy was busy in Jefferson City counting the words in the federal health care bill.  

Few individuals would grudge the costs or inconvenience of childproofing cupboards to protect small children from stored poisons.* Most of us would laugh angrily at anyone who tried to tell us that poison is not really that dangerous when ingested by toddlers, that  it might even be beneficial since repeated small amounts could create immunity, or that rational measures to protect our children will create weak and dependent individuals who can’t look out for themselves.  

However, when the issue is anthropogenic global warming, which could effectively poison our children’s and grand-children’s future, many of us are willing to listen to climate change contrarians who tell us that global warming isn’t really all that dangerous, it costs too much to do what is necessary to stop it, and that we will destroy capitalism if we try to do anything about it.

This message is exactly what Reps. Sue Allen (R-92) and Cole McNary (R-86) are sending to their constituents as they attempt to gin up opposition to cap-and-trade legislation. In a follow-up e-mail to those who attended the showing of the film, Not Evil, Just Wrong, that they sponsored in October, they confuse climate issues that only science can authoritatively address with theoretical economic and political concerns:

It is our view that the best alternatives [i.e. to addressing climate change]  lie in an understanding of science and history. How did the West, particularly the United States, become so much wealthier and cleaner than the rest of the world? Life expectancy has doubled since the beginning of the 19th century – truly remarkable.  A political system that protects our individual rights to life, liberty and property has a lot to do with our progress. It’s a system that leaves scientists free to study and report their findings.  It allows businessmen to innovate and produce, and it allows individuals free to buy and sell goods and services of value in a free-market.

Nor do they forget the right-wing strategy du jour which is to suggest that inconvenient scientific truths can be ignored or reformulated  because they pose a threat to the American Way of Life (and wealth):

Sadly, we are eroding the very systems that have lead to such widespread prosperity especially for the average working man.

The concerns that Allen and NcNary raise have no bearing on the cause of global warming, and do not contribute to solving the problem. So, to provide a veneer of scientific respectability to their ideological rabble-rousing, they provide links to  a talk delivered  by climate-change skeptic Richard Lindzen, and to a  panel discussion featuring presentations by astrophysicist Willie Soon, and physicist Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Istitute.

Soon, whose research is funded by the American Petroleum Institute, clings to a thoroughly debunked theory that climate change is not man-made, but the result of variations in solar radiation. Lockitch, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARI), approaches the climate change debate from an Objectivist perspective that reflects  hostility to environmentalism rather than compelling scientific argument.

Richard Lindzen is a somewhat different matter.  He is the only one of the three who is actually a legitimate climate scientist, and, although his persistent critiques have been roundly rejected, he still retains some shred of respectability. Scientists writing at RealClimate and LogicalScience offer critiques of his positions here, here and here. As his arguments fail to gain traction, he has increasingly resorted to individual and collective ad hominem attacks on his colleagues.  

Why, we ask, are our State Representatives promoting the views of discredited scientists, fools and charlatans. One answer is money. In Missouri, the coal-industry has lots to lose if meaningful cap-and-trade legislation is enacted. And certainly, if you look at the source of campaign funds for both Allen and  McNary, you will note that, electric utilities, energy and natural resources sectors were among their most generous contributors in the past, although the sums were relatively small overall.  Of course, apart from past support, it obviously doesn’t hurt freshmen representatives to cultivate their friends with an eye to the future.

Another, and possibly more compelling answer is ideology – that same furious, simple-minded, fringe conservatism that is responsible for retarding economic and social development across Missouri. This time, however, the stakes are too large;  we cannot afford to permit failed ideology to prevail at the cost of our future.

*Sentence corrected.

When I fume, I just sputter. WillyK spouts sense. Of course, it helps that she has a firm grasp of facts on a wide variety of topics.

At the end of the showing of “Not Evil Just Wrong” Wednesday night, a docufictionary pretending that there’s solid reason to doubt that humans are causing global warming, the three Republican state reps who sponsored the evening–Sue Allen, Andrew Koenig, and Cole McNary, all from West County in St. Louis–took questions. Willy, after listening to a few audience members make remarks indicating they trusted the film’s nonsense, raised her hand and succinctly skewered the movie’s–well, to be charitable–inaccuracies.

The filmmakers had painted a grim picture of job loss because of precipitate switches from good ole dependable coal to such will o’ the wisp energy sources as solar and wind. Indeed, Representative Allen remarked afterward that those sources would not work in Missouri because we do not have enough sun or wind.

Willy responded that part of the point of the new energy legislation (ACES) is to construct a nationwide, standardized grid so that energy could easily, efficiently be moved from, say, sunny Arizona to Missouri when we need it or from windy Wyoming to our state. What’s more, strides are being made at storing such energy for future use.

Willy felt that the film’s misrepresentation of the intent in the cap-and trade legislation echoed its misrepresentation of climate and environmental concerns in the film, one of the most egregious examples being the claim that DDT had been banned for  purposes of malaria eradication.  In the U.S. legislation banning the use of DDT and in the later Stockholm convention, DDT was banned only for agricultural uses but its use was permitted for “medical vector” purposes,  and indeed its use has continued outside the U.S and Europe where other factors had made use of DDT unnecessary.  One of the reasons that DDT is not used more widely at present is that because of its overuse, mosquitoes are becoming resistant.

Willy suggested that if the elected officials conducting the discussion really wanted to discuss cap-and-trade in a fair way, rather than mislead in the same way that the film misled about global warming and DDT use, they  should have  also mentioned that the cap-and-trade provisions will take place slowly in order to allow people to transition to alternative energies. Furthermore, the legislation offers subsidies to help states with high coal use adapt to other kinds of energy.

Rep. McNary accepted her remarks graciously, urging her to send him links by e-mail to verify her claims. Later, though, when she made a second, briefer comment, he ran out of patience and suggested that perhaps she should rent a hall and arrange to hold her own event. Oops. He was finding  her facts inconvenient. The liberal bias of reality can be annoying.

Despite that and other minor tensions between us and the organizers, Willy and I spoke to Representative Allen at the end of the Q & A, and Willy expressed her concern at seeing Rep. Allen associating herself with a film so riddled with inaccuracies. It’s a fair admonition, but I don’t hold much hope that she and the other two representatives will shun such bad company.

Wednesday night, State Reps. Sue  Allen (R-92), Andrew Koenig (R-88), and Cole McNary (R-86) presided over a gathering of about 50 mostly true believers at a presentation of the film Not Evil Just  Wrong. The showing, at Maryville University in West County, was clearly meant to set the stage for an attack on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) now pending in Congress.

Cole McNary effectively established the evening’s tenor, declaring in his opening remarks there is no need to be misled by claims of a scientific consensus that confirms anthropogenic global warming, because, after all,  the scientific method is not consensus, but the process of verification and duplication of results.  (He also, shades of Todd Akin, offered  up the rather obvious fact that he is no scientist – though he has studied science – which leaves one wondering how he thinks all those scientists reach a consensus.)

Not Evil Just Wrong was, as one might expect, just more of the same, although somewhat more sophisticated in its presentation.  In an interview on Fox with Neil Cavuto, one of the film’s creators, Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer, speaks of the movie as the emergence of  “the cinematic wing of the tea party movement,” so you would be correct if you expected lots of high dudgeon and little substance.  A fuller account of its contents and methods can be found here.

The real evil that this film does, though, was only fully on display when the three state lawmakers lined up at the conclusion and attempted to use the misrepresentations and fuzzy equivalencies presented by the filmmakers to trash ACES.  The gist:  cap-and-trade (which Koenig seemed to think equivalent to a carbon tax), will hurt working families, result in lost jobs, higher taxes, all to no purpose, and alternative energy sources, with the possible exception of nuclear, are non-starters.

Of course none of these contentions can be accepted at face value – although most of those present seemed prepared to do just that. Comments ranged from references to the Heritage Foundation’s flawed analysis of ACES costs, to libertarian contentions that, while anthropogenic global warming may or may not be real, it is not proper for the government to play a role in mitigating its effects. Doubtless, many of those present will respond to the request to phone and write their congresspersons to express their opposition ACES.

Too bad that the audience did not get to hear their representatives discuss the actual content of ACES, explain to them that the cap-and-trade provisions are designed take effect gradually, that there are provisions for alternative energy research and development, and funds to soften the transition to clean energy for coal-dependent states like Missouri.  

Too bad that their representatives, who are so concerned about the hypothetical evils of environmental extremism, don’t see fit to inform themselves and their constituents about those third world citizens who actually will suffer if global warming continues on its current trajectory. Why weren’t our lawmakers, on whom we rely for intelligent policy, talking about the effect of global warming on the Maldives, for instance? Or, to really bring it home, why no discussion of Missouri’s future in a warmer world? Why was there no mention of the security implications of global warming that our military have identified?

Perhaps it is because they were too busy trying to help energy industries paint a false picture of what is entailed in clean energy policy? Can we perhaps agree that such irresponsibility is both wrong and just pure evil?