Sure, Sean Penn's a great actor, but when it comes to other issues, he's about as dense as granite (that means "very" if Sean Penn happens to be reading this). He's going around the country as we speak talking about the wonders of biofuels.

Biofuels are nothing to write home about. At the stage they're currently in, they're not very energy efficient and they have a tendency to drive up the costs of other food-based products. Is there potential? Absolutely. In fact, with the right funding, biodiesel can become a true competitive commodity. But not right now. Right now, biodiesel is not a good option.

What Sean Penn should be doing is going around the country and highlighting all of the clean energy technology we already have available that's already efficient enough to be put into use. In addition to a number of cars running on hybrid batteries and offering superior fuel efficiency, there's plenty of options available that can be implemented immediately and will have no effect on the cost of food.

Still, the cost of food is going to rise. When you have an entire farming industry running on gasoline and diesel fuel, and the prices of both have tripled since 2001, everyone is going to suffer. Except the wealthiest one percent, of course. Because they have plenty of tax breaks.

Yours,

Ken Brosky 

To be fair, it's mostly an island of plastic. And if you've heard about it, you're one of the few. Despite the fact that this particular island is twice the size of Texas, very few people even know it exists, unless you live on a shore in the western Pacific Ocean where the garbage has a tendency to wash ashore on. 

How was it created? Natural ocean currents have a tendency to gather the garbage from various parts of the Pacific Ocean and take all of it to one particular place, where it swirls and remains mostly stuck in one place, occasionally drifting to the nearby shores and polluting them with a thick sludge of plastic products. At one place in the "island," plastic can be measured at one million parts per square mile.

How did this happen? Well, all of this plastic started out on land. Through carelessness and/or ignorance, it made its way into the ocean through various channels. And while we may not see the result of throwing away a few plastic bottles here and there--and perhaps could argue that recycling those bottles is hardly economically "worth it"--there's no denying the consequences of what happens when we simply let discarded trash sit. And collect.

And collect.

And now entire ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean are forced to live with this constant threat. What effect will it have, and will it continue to grow? Plastic garbage in the ocean is becoming a greater problem with each passing year.  And this is one problem we can all fix without falling into partisan politics. All it takes is a little responsibility. A little reducing, a little reusing and a little recycling and an educated consumer base. Consider this next time you're planning on tossing away that plastic bottle. Maybe there's a recycling bin nearby.

Yours,

Ken Brosky 

I'm going to write about this once more later in the week, but for now take a look at this link:

How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Global Warming? 

The point of this particular post is mainly a very simple argument and that is this: nothing short of catastrophe will convince the skeptic movement at this point. It's literally impossible. The IPCC, in their eyes, is one big bureaucratic conspiracy, and the scientific "establishment" is flat-out wrong. There will never be enough evidence. Period.

And there's more. For the past three decades, members of the Modern Conservative Movement have gone out of their way to demonize environmentalism and block literally every single attempt to achieve clean energy. The motives changes from person to person, but the ultimate goal of marginalizing the environmental movement is identical in every aspect. After the democrats in Congress voted to mandate all light bulbs to be switched to energy efficient fluorescent bulbs (and will most likely follow suit with LED as it becomes available), the Conservative Movement was up in arms. Even in the Journal Sentinel, Patrick McIlheran argued what right do they have? How could they do this to our freedom? Big Government, blah blah blah

It's not a bad argument, but how long is it credible? The more energy we use, the more we will affect our planet, and when some people decide to use the less efficient light bulbs, that affects the freedom of everyone else. And we're talking about LIGHT BULBS. Light bulbs that can literally reduce our light-based energy consumption by 75 percent. So then the argument is that the bulbs have a little mercury. Okay. Good argument. So why not provide consumers with a simple way to recycle the used bulbs rather than completely abandon the idea? No, that would be too much. This is the EASIEST way to reduce our eco footprint, and there are Movement Conservatives going out of their way to oppose it.

This is nothing new. While in office, President Carter installed solar hot water panels on the White House. When Ronald Reagan took office, he removed them. He literally took them down despite the fact that they were functioning perfectly. This goes beyond criticism of environmentalism. This was a deliberate attack on the movement as a whole, regardless of the progress made up to that point and regardless of the benefits. It was borderline sadistic, and it set the tone for the way the Modern Conservative movement has reacted to any environmental progress.
 

Let's talk about Global Warming Denial within the U.S. Congress, specifically Senator Inhofe. For those of you who don't know Senator Inhofe, he gained a lot of media attention for releasing the "Inhofe 400," a list of 400 scientists who allegedly believed global warming was false. There's only one problem: most of the 400 have been thoroughly debunked. Not only have a majority of the scientists been completely debunked for various reasons, still more are actually coming out and REQUESTING to be taken off the list. Why? Because they believe global warming exists, and that it's caused partly by human beings. They don't want to be on the list!

But I digress. How about those scientists who argue that global warming is a hoax? Let's take a look at one--Chris Allen, a weather director from an ABC affiliate in southern Kentucky--from The Grist:

"My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that."

 Ouch! That's a pretty tough argument for any scientist to debunk.

Kate Sheppard from the American Prospect sums up the "Inhofe 400" in the most concise, realistic way:

"It's not too hard to dredge up 400 people in all the world who think the lunar landing was a farce or believe that Elvis is living in Albuquerque, much like it isn't too hard to dig up 400 people with a vague background in the field of science who find something to dispute in climate science. That doesn't mean their views should be lauded and held up as scientific proof that global warming isn't so bad. There haven't been any peer-reviewed scientific studies validating any claims that the planet is either not warming, or not warming because of humans, and the world's most-respected climatologists are all in agreement."

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.
 

John McCain's vote against Martin Luther King Day was no mistake, and you need to understand this because race plays a BIG role in the modern conservative movement. It plays a big role because the modern conservatives first began in the late 50's to play on the racism of white Americans in order to turn what was once a very tiny sliver of the Republican Party into what we now know as the GOP.

There was a time, in the mid-fifties, where white voters in the south were just as likely to vote Democrat or Republican. The reason they did so was because, from the late 30's through the 50's, Republicans had generally accepted the successful policies of the New Deal. Republicans HAD to accept these policies because they, along with pro-labor, pro-union reform, America had reached what economist Paul Krugman refers to as "The Great Compression," a society where financial inequality was at its lowest in our nation's history. Everyone was beginning to benefit, thanks in no small part to the large union movement (helped by the government's pro-labor reform), which helped guarantee fair wages for union members and had the effect of positively affecting wages in competing non-union jobs.

But there was always a small minority dedicated to eliminating the New Deal policies, including cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating the government's pro-labor reforms. This movement--Modern Conservatism--saw its chance in the late fifties when Democrats were pushing for civil rights reforms. In 1957, The National Review published an editorial arguing that whites could suppress African-Americans because whites were the superior race:

"The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizen, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race ... sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalance of its will worth the terrible price of violence." 

 Not only did the National Review make a point of noting our Constitution as "merely ... a catalog", it made a point of affirming that whites had the right to commit violence in order to retain their superiority, a right many racist whites agreed upon late in the fifties and during the sixties. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into law, the entire South became lost to the Democratic Party and continues to this day to be almost impenetrable (although the racial barrier is collapsing in recent years).

And slowly, Modern Conservatism grew, despite its interest in appealing primarily to the richest one percent of Americans. Slowly, the fringe group became the Republican Majority, and the Republican Party began its attempts to tear down the New Deal policies while cutting taxes for the rich despite having no evidence at all to suggest it would help the economy (there were, in fact, no economists at all in the early days of "supply-side theory," confessed Irving Kristol.). "Liberal Premissiveness," according to Richard Nixon, were at the heart of America's problems.

Modern Conservatism leaped into the fray with Ronald Reagan, who announced his bid for president in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where three civil rights activists were killed in 1964. His speech centered on "states' rights," and there was no denying what the underlying tones were. They were present in another famous speech, one in which he described a so-called "Welfare Queen"--and story that was elaborate fiction to begin with--that never mentioned race, and yet everyone knew what color this woman's skin was. It continued, spreading even into the most libertarian gospels, like those found in Ron Paul's own self-published newsletters.

Through it all, there was always an I'll-scratch-your-back mentality, which was necessary for Modern Conservatism to survive. Loyalty was rewarded above all else, and once Modern Conservatism dominated the Republican Party, Republicans were almost forced to go along with the policies (especially once Karl Rove jumped into the mix and proved himself capable of gutting the Republican Party of anyone who supported New Deal policies). Cronyism was always rewarded with new jobs, and the Bush administration is a clear example at every single level. Even John McCain is learning this now, going out of his way to flip-flop on every single ideology that once made him a "Maverick." Now he'll cut taxes for the rich. Now he'll cozy up to the religious right. Now he'll sell himself out to lobbyists.

Through it all, Modern Conservatism has remained true to its roots in helping only the richest one percent of Americans, and yet the Republican Party has continued to garner strength. While topics like national security and religion and abortion rights have always had a minor role in that popularity, only race has has stood the test of time. John McCain knew the rules back in the day, and he knows them now. 

Now he'll apologize for voting against MLK Day. But you know what? He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he voted against it. He was following Modern Conservatism in order to reap the rewards of its growing power. Had he not, he would be nothing but a footnote in history by this point.

The good news is that racism is losing its popularity even in the deepest heart of the south, and tolerance has grown by leaps and bounds. It's only a matter of time before a significant majority of Americans realize that our country has spent the last 35 years helping only the richest one percent. Once that time comes, Modern Conservatism will desperately clutch at straws before finally disappearing (and indeed already does, preying on our various fears), taking John McCain with it. 

 For those of you interested in learning more, I heartily suggest "The Conscience of a Liberal," by award-winning economist Paul Krugman. The information detailed here represents a fraction of information you'll find in his book.

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

 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