Given it's Earth Day/Week (depending on who you talk to), I thought I'd pick out a few of the best articles I've found on Climate Progress that might be of interest.

NY Times Magazine -- ... is full of junk. Don't bother reading it, and by the way those little articles about global warming you see occasionally? Try to avoid those, too. What relatively little journalism remains at this point is focused entirely on Obama's "bitter" comments. This is a good article for those who believe everything they read.

Future Cars -- One new car gets up to 300 miles per gallon, and guess what? It's already a hot commodity in California, where it's raked up 1,400+ pre-orders. Also, the article looks at a Nova story with more information about newer cars.

Carbon-Saving Ideas -- I particularly enjoyed this piece, because it shows just how much a few small, bright ideas can add up when it comes to cutting Co2. California has a lot on its plate, attempting to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent, but it's finding that the easiest way to do it is to rely on a variety of smaller initiatives that aren't costly and easy to implement. Good to think about, given Wisconsin will probably have something like this soon (only it'll be 10 percent, most likely). 

Well, here we go! It's time for the weekend homework, and this week I'm going to provide you with a number of links to Web sites that you can use again and again. I'll try and do this again in the future, but for now, this will give you a great head start. Bookmark these.

Climate Progress -- Run by a scientist who's actually conducted empirical research on global climate change, this is a great resource. He's funny, intelligent and has no problem calling out Democrats or Republicans who are unwilling to accept scientific facts. Global warming is real, it's important, and we have technology available right now to begin combating the problem.

David Sirota -- One of my favorite columnists and author of Hostile Takeover. Sirota takes Republicans and conservative Democrats to task, focusing mainly on corruption related to lobbying issues and how bribery can affect a politician's decisions. In addition, he makes a point of showing the positive side of government and how grassroots organizations are making a real difference. Well worth subscribing to.

Paul Krugman -- A liberal economist, one of the best on this planet. Krugman's analyses on everything from the dangers of unregulated forces to universal health care to classic economics is always well researched and intelligent.

Enjoy these. The most recent posts are excellent.
 

 Let's have a little fun today. Today we're going to take a look at a conservative hit piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and we're going to dissect it. We're going to take it apart and examine it much in the same way you might examine a frog in Science class. Why do we examine frogs in science class? Why, to learn from them, of course! So it goes with this particular editorial. We're going to learn about it so we can more readily identify hit pieces in the future (and there are a LOT of hit pieces out there). This is going to be a great time.

First, read this editorial by Al Smith.

Fun, isn't it? Before we delve into things, we need to create our first rule. This is an important rule because it will distinguish Hit Pieces from other editorials.

Rule #1: Hit Pieces generally target positive groups, like environmentalism.

Next, we're going to take a look at the wording. This piece is filled with negative words, and they're all aimed at the environmentalism movement.Radicals, zealots, criminal selfishness ... all of these words have one goal in mind: to demonize environmentalism to the reader will not identify with it. The more Smith demonizes them, the less the reader is likely to say, "Hey! I'm an environmentalist!" No reader is going to say that if the environmentalists are radical zealots bent on shutting down all of our electricity, right? Well, few would, at least. But the goal, obviously, is to put the reader on Smith's side. The more he can negatiely portray the environmental movement, the more he's free to ridicule it, and the more he's free to ridicule it, the more readers will identify with his position. The environmental movement exists as "factions," and its attempts at creating awareness are little more than "spectacles" at best. You get the picture. So let's create another rule:

Rule #2: Hit Pieces rely on negative words to ensure readers do not identify with the target (in this case, environmentalism)

Now let's take a look at the imagery. The world according to Al Smith is a scary place, and the environmental movement is only making things worse. Images of empty cars and streets, the "Dark Ages," empty factories ... this piece has it all. If you're an environmentalist, says Smith, then you obviously want to destroy our very way of life. Powerful stuff, and these images are peppered throughout (and usually associated with the negative words we looked at before). Smith even goes so far as to quote a diplomat from World War I, and this is not unintentional. Smith is conjuring up powerful images without explicitly mentioning it. When we think of World War I, the words "Senseless" and "violence" have a tendency to come to mind, and it's no mistake that he's using this World War I quote. His goal is to ensure readers are relating the "senselessness" of the environmental movement with the senselessness of World War I, as well as all the violent imagery that goes along with it. Let's make another rule:

Rule #3: Hit Pieces use negative, scary and oftentimes violent imagery to demonize their target

 There is more at work here. In order to make his point more succinct, Smith attempts to group environmentalists together by suggesting NOTHING is good enough for them except complete abandonment of electricity in general. No solution works, only MORE government, MORE regulation. He also relies heavily on the old tirades of the conservatives, including the evils of government, the loss of "Freedom" and of course those pesky new light bulbs that are just too efficient. There's only one problem with this argument: the entire point of Earth Hour was to make a very specific statement:

Human beings are willing to regulate themselves.

That was the point, wasn't it? Smith even mentions this early on in his piece, that the idea was that human beings are not so indentured to technology that they can't turn out a light for an hour, the idea that human beings can make a BIG difference without government help. Sure, it would be nice if our government enforced basic environmental regulations, But under the Bush administration, that's not going to happen. They believe in market-based regulation, and while it's a noble ideal, it just isn't going to happen. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says, the free market is incapable of controlling pollution, so there HAS to be government involvement.

Events like Earth Hour frighten Smith because they show him that he's in an extreme minority. While others are attempting to solve the problems facing our generation and future generation, Smith is unwilling to offer solutions himself, relying instead on attacking everyone else. He's takes solace in knowing the Irish pubs and the Chinese are on his side (as if this is truly something to be bragging about: the Chinese government also sides with the Sudanese government, right?), and attempts to demonize environmentalists much in the same way conservatives have been doing so largely since Rush Limbaugh made his debut.

All right, enough ranting. I think you get the picture. Hopefully, by carefully examining this, you'll be able to spot these pieces in the future. Learn from them. As wrong as they may be, they're a powerful method being used by the modern conservative movement and deserve attention.

 
Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

For those of you who think this environmental disaster was old news, guess what -- Exxon is still fighting to keep every penny out of the hands of people and communities damaged by its incompetence. Remember when Exxon went in front of the cameras and promised to compensate everyone and everything was going to be okay and *insert-typical-corporation-speech-here*? Well, that hasn't panned out, exactly.

So what happened on that fateful night, anyway? I'm sure you remember, as I do, that some captain was drunk and hit a reef, right? I mean, that's what I picked up from the news reports and stored in my memory. But what if I told you that the ship's radar system--a radar specifically used to locate underwater reefs--was turned off that night? What if I told you that, in order to cut costs, Exxon stopped maintaining and using their radar system? Would that be enough to outrage you? What if I told you that Exxon wasn't even supposed to  have a ship in the water that night? According to investigative journalist Greg Palast:

"On the night of March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez was not even supposed to leave harbor. Here’s why. Tankers are not allowed to sail unless unless a spill containment barge is operating nearby. That night, the barge was in dry-dock, locked under ice. Exxon kept that fact hidden, concealing the truth even after the tanker grounded. An Exxon official radioed the emergency crew, “Barge is on its way.” It wasn’t.
Had the barge been in operation, it would have surrounded the leaking ship with rubber skirts - and Paul’s home, and Alaska’s coast, would have been saved. But Exxon couldn’t wait for its oil."

Click here to read Greg Palast's entire article about the TRUTH regarding the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, and the connections to John McCain. 

So now Exxon is fighting all the way to Supreme Court, probably because it knows that the Supreme Court has been stacked with corporate cronies like John Roberts. Case in point: John Roberts is obviously dismayed that Exxon could be forced to actually pay for its incompetence, and he's made it absolutely clear that he's not going to vote in favor of the plantiffs suing Exxon-Mobil to clean up the mess and restore the ecosystem along the coastline. Here's an excerpt from an article by Dana Milbank from inside the Supreme Court:

"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.

The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."

The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.

The plantiffs in this case--thousands of fishermen and natives of the area--have not received a dime yet in punitive damages. Exxon-Mobile's strategy is simple: fight it till they're all dead.

I hope this upsets you.