Mad Math: April's Fossil Fuel Tally

Tosoro Refinery, Anacortes, WA:............7
Upper Branch Mine, Montcoal, WV:........29
Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, Gulf Coast:...11
Dotiki Coal Mine, Providence, KY:.......... 2
____________________________________
GRAND TOTAL:....................................49

Shame, shame, shame on us!

Massey is going to offer the families of the dead UBM miners a total of nearly $90 million to shut up and go away. How much would it have cost to have the proper safety provisions in the mines to begin with? And how much could we add to that blood money if they hadn't had to bribe the inspectors? Would that have bought the safety of those miners?

What will we learn next about the other fossil fuel disasters that have happened this month? Whatever it is, I have a sinking feeling that it won't be enough. Until people go to jail over things like this, we won't ever get the attention of the likes of Don Blankenship.

Papiere, bitte

OK, now I'm scared.

I seem pretty "American." Brown hair, green eyes, no accent. But I don't carry my birth certificate with me. If I take a walk with my husband around the neighborhood, I don't even have my driver's license. And I've always thought that as long as I didn't - you know - hold up a bank or stab someone, no one would haul me into jail.

Then again...

Arizona has just taken the next step towards the fascist state the Tea Partiers love to warn us about - except that they aren’t decrying this one. The latest bill passed by the Copper State’s legislature, and just today signed into law by Gov. Brewer, would make it a crime in that state for an illegal immigrant not to carry an alien registration document. It also would require police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally.

Where do I begin?

First of all, any crime that makes it illegal for an illegal immigrant to do anything illegal is just ludicrous on its face. Kind of like making it illegal to rob a bank with a Glock. (And anyone who doesn't get that can just stop reading. Come to think of it, they probably never started.)

Second of all, what would constitute "reason to suspect" that someone is in the country illegally? Lucky for us that our friends at azcentral.com have given us an overview. In a Q&A format, University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin, and Kris Kobach of University of Missouri-Kansas City law school (the latter who helped to write the legislation), have given us their professional assessment of how the law might play out in the real world.

• Question: Do I have to carry an ID card all the time now, to prove I'm a citizen?

• Answer: No, the law does not require citizens to prove their citizenship. Professor Kobach's answer actually says: "If the person merely asserts that he is a U.S. citizen, that's good enough." Ok, then. If you're a citizen and you say you're a citizen, you're fine. If you're here illegally, though, and you say you're a citizen, and can't prove it, then we can haul you in.

• Not Answered: How is it determined that you’re a citizen who does not have to prove you’re a citizen? And how long can the police keep you in the hoosegow while you’re proving/not proving it?

I like Professor Chin's answer better. Well, not "like" so much as "respect." He says that "if you look Mexican or Hispanic or Asian or Black, then you should carry ID" because "there's already some evidence" (that being your very tan face or very slanted eyes) that you might trigger "reasonable suspicion." Anyone perusing his curriculum vitae would see that Professor Chin is widely published on immigration issues. And he perhaps has a unique perspective on this issue, looking reasonably suspiciously Asian himself. But he brings up only one of two points that have troubled me most about this new law.

The first concern has been well-aired of late: that of racial profiling. This should be of obvious concern to anyone whose description fits within the list of usual suspects that Professor Chin outlined. My daughter-in-law was born in Peru, but she is a naturalized citizen of the US. I was born in this country, so she worked harder for that "citizen" designation that I did. But she is dark-skinned and has an accent, so in Arizona, she will have to carry her "papers." And if, God forbid, she were ever mugged in Mesa, she might find herself locked up next door to her assailant until one of us can drive down there with some replacement documents for her.

The second point, however, is not one I've heard anyone put forward: political profiling. The standard of "reasonable suspicion," as far as I've been able to tell, is not defined. What if I have a t-shirt or bumper sticker that a cop takes exception to? What if he thinks my sentiment is supsicously unAmerican? And what if he's just a jerk? But it couldn't happen here. Could it? If the press round-ups at the 2008 GOP convention didn't get your attention, if Bush's Free-Speech Zones didn't rub you the wrong way, then just Google "police stop for bumper stickers" and see if any of the hits sound like stories from the Land of the Free. "Live Free or Die" will get you pulled over in some jurisdictions. And if you have "9/11 was an inside job" on your car, you'd better get yourself either some adhesive remover or a lawyer on retainer.

Over the past eight years, we have had Hitler analogies and socialist-fascist-totalitarian hyperbole flung from the Left and now from the Right, to the point that we seem to have been desensitized to it in the same way that we have learned to ignore "damn" and "Hell" during Prime Time. Now, it seems, we may have to learn to tolerate yet another previously offensive phrase from the darker pages of history:

"Papers, please."

Never Mind Massey: Our Own Unwarrantable Failure

Last week on NPR's Morning Edition, at the end of Renee Montagne’s interview with Bob Ferriter of the Colorado School of Mines, she asked him why, in 2010, we are still using people instead of machines to mine coal. I think the more appropriate question is why, in 2010, we are still mining and using coal at all. Mr. Ferriter defined the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) term “unwarrantable failure” as knowing the proper way to do something, and ignoring it. The coast-to-coast tragedies we have witnessed recently, from the oil refinery explosion in Anacortes, WA, to the Massey coal mine disaster in West Virginia, are the result of unwarrantable failure that extends far beyond industry management: We ignore the alternatives we have to fossil fuels.

And we do have alternatives. Wind farms dot the landscape from the wide-open prairies to the hills outside of San Francisco. Communities in Europe are able to generate enough electricity from roof-top solar panels that home owners sell power back to the grid. And we have barely touched the potential of biomass and geothermal. And conservation? Talk about Power to the People! That strategy is currently within the grasp of each and every one of us.

Of course, this "green" power is currently expensive. But what are the costs of the energy sources we doggedly, unquestioningly, continue to pursue: The price of gasoline has the power to send our economy into a tail spin. Soot from our tailpipes and factories so foul the air that the weather report warns “sensitive people” to stay indoors. Nuclear power plants are so risky that We The People have to subsidize their operation through government insurance -- never mind the 10,000 year half-life of their waste.

Oh, and now you can add 5 refinery workers and 25 coal miners to that price tag. How many solar panels would their families buy to have them back?

Sarah at Stanislaus: CSU can't do better?

"Due to severe state budget cuts imposed upon the CSU, most administrative offices at California State University, Stanislaus will be closed on the dates listed below in observance of mandatory, unpaid furlough days.
"Students are advised to consult with their instructors concerning the impact of faculty furlough days on specific course meeting dates. Unless the students in a particular course are told otherwise, they should assume that most courses will be meeting according to the published schedule."

These words on the CSU Stanislaus website would lead one to believe that the school, like so many institutions in my native state, is in dire straits. But now, in one of the last gasps of investigative journalism yet alive in this country, one particular CSUS student ignored Furlough Friday, and did some dumpster diving. What she came up with was a copy of a contract related to the school's upcoming 50th anniversary celebration. The contract was with scheduled speaker Sarah Palin.

Just prior to the discovery of the documents, state Senator Leland Yee had quizzed school representatives about the school's expenditures in bringing Ms. Palin to campus. The school denies spending any money on Ms. Palin's visit. Needless to say, Sen. Yee now has a few more questions for the school, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown is going to do a little checking into this, as well. But Matt Swanson, president of the CSU Stanislaus Foundation, has assured those concerned that "We're not only using no state money, we're not even using existing foundation dollars."

Yeah, Matt, maybe. But it just looks bad.

The school has been slashing funding for things related to their primary purpose: education. The CSUS website notes that if alumni or other supporters want to make a donation to help "continue the CSU Stanislaus tradition of quality education and personal attention," they should make their check out to "California State University, Stanislaus Foundation." So Mr. Swanson wants to reassure us that any such donations, including the $500 per plate tab for the upcoming event, will continue to support the school's vital mission by funding Ms. Palin's $100,000 (minimum) speaking fee, a private jet, and bendy straws (not kidding!). In other words, the Foundation thinks it fitting to hire for this celebration of higher education a speaker who is famous for her lack of curiosity, proud of her insatiable appetite for not reading, and who as a student herself quit four colleges. Now that's alumni money well-spent!

But really, CSU Stanislaus Foundation, is this the best you can do? There are no California native daughters - or at least transplants - whose connection to California might make their presence a little more meaningful, maybe even a little more consistent with intellectual excellence? Sally Ride? Maria Shriver? Condeleeza Rice? Tracy Caldwell Dyson? (Dr. Dyson might even have some killer PowerPoint slides from her trip to the International Space Station!) Even if every one of them commanded their own hefty speaker's fee, I'm sure each has something more profound to read off the palm of her hand than "Don't Retreat... RELOAD!"

I am very concerned about the future of education in this country, and its impact on the future of the country itself. Ironically, my stepson and his family, including those citizens of the future that are my grandchildren, live right down the street from the CSU Stanislaus campus. So while I am distressed over history textbooks in Texas, dismayed about the lost art of critical thinking, and downright sad about the state of literacy in general (Rnt U?), I have an especially finely-honed radar concerning things that might impact those two particular kids in Turlock. So I have to ask myself: Should it come to pass that Ms. Palin does do a turn at the CSUS podium, what will she say? Maybe she can be an inspiration for the future generations of CSU students. Just think of what she could teach them:

• If you don't like your job, you can always quit.
• If you don't like what people are saying about you, call them names.
• You can score points as a pundit by blaming the other party for the problems your own party has caused (the political equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?").
• Once you get your own TV show, if you can't get interviews with big stars, just make believe you interviewed them (oh, and edit, edit, edit!).
• If you don't like that people are accusing you of things like misappropriating funds, using your children as political props, and outright lying in your "auto"biography, change the subject to something that can't be refuted because it is sheer nonsense.
• When inevitably someone points out that what you said is sheer nonsense, or worse yet calls you out for being just plain wrong, say that you were misunderstood.
• If the above does not work, then foment violence (and then be prepared to repeat that you were misunderstood).
• Above all, wear tight clothes, high heels, higher hair, and leathah!

OK, not so much inspiration as sensation. I propose that instead of Ms. Palin, why not give $100,000 to CSU Stanislaus student Alicia Lewis, who discovered the dumpster documents and brought them to light? Then she might actually be able to finish college, and do something truly inspirational.

Net Neutrality

On Tuesday, the principle of net neutrality got put on life support when the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to stop C o m c a s t from slowing down or blocking sites they don't like. Contact your federal representatives and tell them how you feel about this.

As for me, if I really want to know what it's like to use the internet in China, I'll get on a plane.

A Supreme Noogie

Joe Wilson behaved himself last night. Sam Alito did not. Not to excuse Mr. Wilson’s behavior last year, but he was at least in his own chamber (which, come to think of it, makes his behavior even more ghastly - he disses his guests), and Joe is a member of the "loyal (to what) opposition." He was a partisan, responding in a partisan manner.

But even though he used his Library of Congress voice, Sam Alito’s mouthed outburst of "not true" to the President, in response to the President’s criticism of a recent SCOTUS decision, strikes me as an even greater breach of civility. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. While it’s obvious that the Justices, being human (we are told), have political leanings. But in their behavior while acting as a member of the Court (and sitting in the front row at a Presidential Address with television cameras on them would count), they are supposed to be above the partisan fray. Last night, however, Alito behaved as though he was a kid back in New Jersey, exchanging volleys of "Uh hu" and "Nah ah" with his sister. I expect better behavior from a full-grown Supreme. In fact, most of the time at a State of the Union address, the Justices sit on their hands, to avoid an appearance of partisanship. And while they might smile or frown, I am pretty certain no Justice has ever face-mimed "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" in a joint session of Congress.

Maybe Alito’s response to the President was based on a heart-felt belief that the Citizens United decision was so obviously The True Law of The Land, that any disagreement with it is unbearable, and requires immediate correction. But even that benefit of the doubt does not hold up. If Alito truly felt so strongly and passionately about any difference of opinion, then when is his own "home territory," Justice Alito at least should have been shaking his head the whole time Justice Stevens read his fiery dissenting opinion from the bench. Maybe stuck out his tongue. As far as I know, he did not do either. If he had, I’m sure Nina Totenberg would have mentioned it.

So I take Alito’s behavior as nothing less than another signal that the Supreme Court is not only activist and partisan, it is now jack-bootedly so. The conservative Justices do not truck outside dissent, to the point that at least one of them will behave like a kid playing basketball in Aunt Tilly’s living room: so focused on their own view of the world, that they lack any courtesy whatsoever when invited to someone else’s house. At Aunt Tilly’s house, that’s just bad manners. On the world stage, that’s usually played out as totalitarianism.

During the State of the Union, at least one member of one of the Cabinet is selected to sit it out. In the event that some disaster wipes out the U.S. Capitol Building, and all inside, we would have at least one "designated survivor" who can take the reigns. The Congress usually picks a few members to sit it out, as well. The Supreme Court does not traditionally do this. They are usually all there, and seated in the front row, as honored guests. But maybe it’s time that they leave Sammy home for the next one.

Then again.... If a disaster did occur, the surviving Judicial Branch would be made up entirely of: Sam Alito. So strike that last thought. Next time, Sammy, try to behave more like a Supreme Court Justice, and less like a pesky kid who cannot let a dissenting comment pass without responding with the Washington DC equivalent of a school-yard noogie.

A Nobel Gesture

I heard the news at 4:00 AM. I often awake early, and turn on the radio to help me drift back to sleep for another couple of hours. But I was wide awake this morning, and this news clinched it for me that I would not be returning to Dreamland.

I am a hopeful supporter of our President. I believe he's the right man at the right time. I am counting on him to pull us back from the precipice. At the very least, his election has stanched the hemorrhaging of our civil liberties and our national honor. I am relieved he's in charge. But when I heard that he’d won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was puzzled. Really? Now? Why?

I had no doubt that in the future, Mr. Obama will have earned the honor without any question. And I did think that thus far in his nascent presidency, he has managed to put a whole new spin on the course of our planet. But on the heels of Saturday Night Live's opening sketch last weekend ("Look at what I've accomplished with majorities in the House and Senate... jack squat"), I wondered: what was the Nobel committee thinking? Obama has not brokered any ground-breaking handshakes. He hasn't torn down any walls, caught any Nazis, or granted any micro-loans. He has not even assembled an Oscar-winning Power Point presentation.

What has he done?

As the day wore on, I took breaks from work to listen to the radio, and to visit Google, and I found my perspective on Mr. Obama’s resume evolving. He has actually accomplished a few things in his 47 years:

1. Instead of seeking a job with a cushy law firm (his resume certainly would have opened doors for him), he sought out the opportunity to be a community organizer on the streets of Chicago. That changed a few lives for the better.
2. He stood up to the entrenched power structure by questioning the "war" in Iraq, the violation of civil liberties, and the eroding of America's respectability in the world community that was happening under President Bush. That "call to arms," starting with his campaign for the Illinois state senate, is pretty much what got him elected President.
3. He has returned the US Presidency to its role as an active participant in efforts to reverse global climate change and end nuclear proliferation.
4. He enacted a financial bail out which - all other criticisms aside - has kept the world's financial system from total collapse. For now.
5. He has called for, and is trying to referee, the reform of our health insurance system.
6. He has reversed some of Bush’s more disastrous environmental policies.

Not bad for a rookie. By this time, his predecessor had already managed to lose the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon, and some real estate in rural Pennsylvania. But I also had to ask myself: What has he not done?

1. He has not closed Gitmo.
2. He has not stopped renditions.
3. He has not reversed the PATRIOT Act.
4. He has not yet fully awakened to the reality of the morass in Afghanistan.
5. He has not issued an order to stop "don't ask, don't tell," to halt the expulsion of gay military personnel.
6. Oh, and that Olympics thing.

These are not criticisms. OK, some of them are. But he's been in office only a few months, so to expect him to have accomplished much more would be a bit unfair. And as I have noted, he certainly could have done worse. But it takes more than not being Bush to get the attention of the Nobel committee. So I dug deeper, and by the end of the day, I had a different perspective on his accomplishments. He’s done a bit more with his time in office than hold a "Beer Summit."

Most impressive to me was that in his short tenure as the leader of the free world, he appears to have steered us away from a collision with nuclear holocaust. Last month, he chaired a United Nations Security Council summit meeting, at which a resolution was passed calling for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It’s a sure bet that his predecessor would not have offered support to any discussion of nuclear disarmament, especially if it was tied to a UN resolution. And to be the first US President to chair a UN summit meeting, let alone one on this particular issue - former UN ambassador John Bolton must be having the vapors. In fact, there are those on the right who saw Obama’s participation in the UN proceedings as a violation of the Constitution, and an abdication of US sovereignty. The Nobel committee, however, apparently sees it as a sign of hope that we as a species may live long enough to see the world population more threatened by climate change than by nuclear disaster (a good news/bad news proposition if ever there was one).

But if he stopped right there, he will have fallen short of expectations, even those held by his supporters before this morning’s announcement. I hope that this honor gives a boost to Obama's "political capital," so that he can fulfill that promise. I hope it makes him more Presidential, and perhaps a bit less Senatorial. And ok, I have to add: I hope it gives Misters Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck severe heartburn. Maybe this will at least dampen some of the "foreign-born socialist fascist Nazi Death Panel Dictator" rhetoric we've had to endure lately. Unfortunately, not even the RNC can manage to be grown-ups about this. Instead, the committee issued a petulant press release saying "It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights." Perversely, they just cannot pass up an opportunity to find fault with our President, even for being the recipient of an award he did not seek, and that he himself has said he does not feel he deserves. One would hope that at least a few of them might take their cue from Sen. John McCain, who graciously put "Country First" in saying that "as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."

I am indeed proud.

I do wonder if the Nobel Committee has given Obama more of a burden than an honor by laying on him this mantle. The President did not seek it, and it should not reflect ill on him because he's the recipient of an honor. He is perhaps muttering under his breath "Thanks a heap, guys!" Still, if nothing else, the Nobel folks have set the bar pretty high, and I don't think that's a bad thing.