TGIF Tunes

(Editor's Note: Great plans for a full week of posts were trumped by tweaking my back Monday at the pool and losing my head over a post on a friend's blog Thursday night. Maybe next week posting will go a little more smoothly.)



Today's tunes come from one of my favorite bands, Matchbox Twenty, fronted by one of the more unique voices in modern music, Rob Thomas. This is "All I Need" from an iTunes exclusive EP released in 2003. It is one of their lesser known singles, but one my music collection wouldn't be complete without. Runners-up this week, for no particular reason, include Tinted Windows, a group I mentioned Saturday, with "Messing With My Head" and Melissa Etheridge performing live, here with the great Joan Armatrading single, "The Weakness In Me."

Not What It Seems

Picking up where she left off, the MountainGoat Report has a great piece exposing yet another vote by Congressman Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) that is not what it seems.

Beginning her post, she asks questions that must be on the minds of many progressive Idahoans and pretty much anyone else who is paying attention to Idaho politics:

"It has become nearly impossible to determine what is driving Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick these days. Is Minnick really being driven by what's "Right for Idaho" as he claims? Or is it just whatever's right for Walt Minnick?"

The post breaks down the estate tax exemption vote that Minnick touted this week. I can't do the superb research of the MountainGoat Report justice here, so please take the time to read the entire post.

I tend to agree that a lot of the things that are right for Walt Minnick are totally wrong for Idaho.

What's Lost In Compromising

(Update 9:02 p.m. MST: The AP is reporting that the Democrats have reached a deal that would drop the public option from the health care reform bill currently being considered by the Senate.)

The latest conversation taking place in the halls of the United States Senate about health care reform seems to center around a compromise that would allow more Americans to enroll in Medicare. Democrats struggling to reach the sixty vote threshold required for passage are open to the idea of changing the enrollment age for Medicare to 60 years old, if not younger, and Republicans suddenly, though certainly not historically, supportive of Medicare are not openly opposing such a change if the leadership can prove it won't cause the collapse of Medicare.

Though very little negative is being said about this new option or Medicare in general, those of us not in the age group that this type of deal would help are left scratching our heads. Wasn't the goal of health care reform to make health care affordable and accessible to all Americans? How does forcing competition in the market for the 55 or older crowd by introducing Medicare as a competitor result in any sort of lowered cost for the 55 and younger crowd? Senators are expressing their concern for the 45-50 crowd amidst this latest news, but nobody seems to be concerned with the large number of Americans that still need the public option.

It is unclear this morning whether the idea of lowering the age for Medicare, an idea confirmed last night by Senator Rockefeller, is simply an attempt to appease progressive Democrats who would prefer single-payer or a robust public option. Some suggest that a buy-in to Medicare for those in the 55-65 age group should be a discussion for later days, days when it is clear that there is absolutely no chance of a public option (with or without triggers, an opt-out clause, language that would turn the clock back on a woman's right to choose or any other number of ridiculous compromises that have been thought up by spineless senators who are stalling, ignoring the true will of the people, or simply feeding their colossal egos) surviving on final passage.

All of this wrangling, the constant compromises and the partisan bickering on the floor of the Senate is only wearing on Americans. Some are watching and taking in the constant lies the Republicans are offering, fearful that they'll lose whatever coverage, however poor, that they currently have. Some are seeing the clips on the evening news and simply turning the other way rather than listen to the ridiculous partisanship. Then there are others, I'm afraid quite a few Americans fall into the category of apathetic. Weeks and months of health care debate has only left them numb. There are those who haven't heard a word of the debate and don't speak of it as if it is going to be the end of the world if health care reform passes and then there are those who haven't heard the debate or have listened to the factually deprived ravings on Fox News, and speak of health care reform as if it is, well, we don't even need to categorize this, they do say that it is going to kill grandma, there will be rationing of care, Medicare will collapse because its funding will be redirected to the inevitable government takeover of health care. It is tiring, tiring for all Americans and even tiring for those among us who watch the debate and read about it daily.

President Obama and the Democrats probably should have started the health care debate with the idea of a single-payer system so that the compromises may have left them with some sort of public option instead. Starting with a public option inevitably means, with the current level of partisanship and number of unavoidable compromises, that we will end up with something less than the public option. A robust public option was thrown out the window on day one.

Hopefully this latest conversation about changing the age Americans can enroll or buy into Medicare will not push from the minds of the Democrats that there are millions of Americans who won't be eligible for Medicare, make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid though not enough money to afford decent health insurance coverage, or face other roadblocks in attaining health insurance.

The legislation must do something about the cost of prescription drugs, perhaps exactly what a coming amendment will propose--opening the United States to drugs from Canada and European countries. The legislation must do something about the discriminatory practices that insurance companies employ--practices like denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and charging women higher premiums than men, men of the same age and in similar health. The legislation must also address the practice of denying patients the opportunity to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Without a public option, it may be impossible for this legislation to get the costs down. A public option would create competition in the market, forcing insurance companies to offer reasonable plans with reasonable premiums. And a public option would offer Americans the chance to be insured if they've exhausted all other means. The current discussion about lowering the Medicare age does not fix any of these problems and the majority party would be wise to avoid tunnel vision at this point. There are too many Americans being left out in this unending series of compromises.

The Conspiracy Club

Honestly, when I read the recent opinion column of Richard Larsen in the Idaho State Journal, I thought his theory that climate change directly affects American sovereignty was outlandish and completely disconnected from mainstream thought. It may be disconnected from national mainstream conservatism, but it is certainly not disconnected from mainstream conservatism in Idaho.

A gem of a letter to the editor of the Twin Falls Times-News appeared yesterday by a respected community member. Ken Kuhlman of Burley's First Baptist Church is on the climate change legislation equals the undoing of the United States Constitution bandwagon and has much to say about everything the Democrats are doing wrong. Here's a snippet:

"[T]he climate crisis is purely political poppycock fabricated to alarm the public. By telling everyone they can solve crises, “they” curry political favor to buy their reelection. Climatic variations are the norm. Those in power control what the public hears, and ultimately public opinion. One thing we ought to know by now is we can not trust most of the present elected officials. If we cannot trust our elected officials in Washington — how can we trust unelected officials in one-world government."

Kuhlman's use of "they" refers specifically to the President and the Democrats in Congress (Democrats he also refers to as progressives and Socialists). Though arguing logic with this man, like any other conspiracy theorist, would do no good, his assessment that the current state of our country, economic and otherwise, being due to the current executive and legislative branches "destroying the balance of power" is laughable. Need we be reminded that the rule of law was ignored and the Constitution trampled while the Republicans controlled the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives from 2001 through 2006?

This letter reflects Ken Kuhlman's fear of world government, the "one world order" scare that is so often associated with conspiracy theories as was pointed out in the Sunday Idaho State Journal op-ed that I mentioned. The letter also represents the growing fears, many outlandish, deeply embedded in the minds of some Idahoans, even Idahoans most of us would consider mainstream. Certainly these newly minted members of the conspiracy club represent a minority of Idahoans.

First Librarian Heads National Archives

One would assume that both the Librarian of Congress and the Archivist of the United States would be positions held by librarians, archivists or individuals trained in both disciplines. Historically, this has not been the case.

Until last month when David S. Ferriero officially became the United States Archivist, a librarian had never held the top position as administrator of the National Archives and Records Administration. The position requires a political appointment and confirmation by the United States Senate. Ferriero is the first librarian by trade to preside over the Archives and his counterpart at the Library of Congress, Dr. James Hadley Billington, is only the third librarian to hold his position. If you consider that the first Librarian of Congress was appointed in 1802 and the position of Archivist of the United States has existed since an act of Congress created the National Archives Establishment in 1934, it is amazing and rather unusual that so few trained librarians and archivists have held these two positions. Interestingly enough, neither of these positions have been held outright by women (both have had female acting administrators, but only during times of transition between appointed administrators).

Unfortunately, the Librarian of Congress and the United States Archivist have previously been political heavy weights that have contributed to the success of partisan politics and their individual parties. As is common in politics, these individuals have been rewarded for their efforts and loyalty by a presidential appointment. This has been disadvantageous to the general preservation and accessibility to some of the nation's most important documents, both because administrators have not always been trained in the field of libraries and archives and because in at least one case, ethical questions have arisen because of their partisan association with the White House. Ferriero represents a drastic departure from the previous administration of the Archives. Ferriero's predecessor, Allen Weinstein, acted in a partisan fashion and agreed to a policy that was detrimental to researchers, historians, political scientists and the general public, and will be so for years to come. In 2006, Weinstein agreed to "reclassify" or withdraw from public access documents that were deemed essential to national security. This agreement was forged between the National Archives and government agencies like the CIA.

Though Weinstein's transgression is merely the most egregious acts of sitting United States Archivists, the question of ethics and partisan secrecy could be asked of other former Archivists and Librarians of Congress. Take for example John J. Beckley, the first Librarian of Congress. Prior to his appointment as Librarian, Beckley served as the first political campaign manager in the history of the United States and is credited as the father of the political party system. Clearly, Beckley's partisanship could have played a role in the accessibility and preservation of certain documents, especially those critical of his party and those that might damage the reputation of his political associates. Beckley's successor, Patrick Magruder, was a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives and presided over the Archives during the infamous War of 1812 burning of the capitol building. Magruder resigned after an investigation into the fire and the use of Library of Congress funds. John Meehan was appointed Librarian of Congress by Democratic President Andrew Jackson and during the final years of the Whig Party. Meehan's tenure represented a time when conservative supporters advocated limits on the size of and number of materials housed in the Library of Congress. It is hard to imagine that a Librarian of Congress would actually turn away historical materials, yet Meehan did. John Stephenson who held the post after Meehan was a physician by trade and to this day it is unclear why Stephenson would have wanted the post and why he was appointed. At the National Archives, John W. Carlin who was appointed by President Clinton had a background in politics. Having served in the Kansas House of Representatives and as the Governor of Kansas, Carlin was appointed administrator of the National Archives and Records Administration directly following a failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. It could certainly be said of Carlin that his partisan affiliations may have influenced his decisions with respect to access and preservation of government documents.

Ferreiro will undoubtedly have his work cut out for him. At a time when archivists nationally are dealing with the growing reliance of government agencies on digital documents and accessibility to such documents is being openly debated, the pressure to provide examples of how best to manage these materials is being placed on the National Archives. Ferrerio, as NARA's administrator, presides over a system that includes the National Archives in Washington, D.C., the National Archives at College Park, Maryland (known as NARAII), ten affiliated archives, the presidential library system (consisting of the libraries and papers of Presidents Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and the library under construction of George W. Bush), and fourteen regional archive facilities in eleven states.

In addition to the overwhelming task of providing leadership for a system of archives and libraries as expansive as NARA's, Ferreiro will be forced to address access issues surrounding the Presidential Records Act which was significantly damaged by Executive Order 13233 (signed into law by President George W. Bush and quickly revoked by President Barack Obama). Ferreiro will encounter both Bush's damaging executive order and his general beliefs about executive privilege as the George W. Bush Library, the thirteenth presidential library in the NARA system to be located in Dallas, opens and becomes subject to Freedom of Information Act Requests beginning on January 20, 2014. Additionally, Ferreiro will be at the helm while a major collection move happens--the transferring of the Nixon papers currently housed at NARA in College Park to join the rest of that collection housed at the Nixon Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California.

With professional responsibilities as vast and daunting as these, why would anyone, trained in the discipline or not, seek this particular political appointment? I suspect Ferreiro, like his colleagues in the field of library and information sciences and archivists, political scientists, and historians, would say that this position is crucial to preserving America's history.

The Climate Change Conspiracy Theory

In response to the local conservative columnist revealing that he is a conspiracy theorist, a theorist who believes that climate change is an international conspiracy to usurp the sovereignty of the United States, is this great column running in today's Idaho State Journal:

LET’S NOT BE FOOLED BY THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

For those of us who are non-scientists, it is difficult to assess the controversy over global warming. Most of us lack the necessary background knowledge about the science of climatology. Most of us do not understand the mathematical techniques that are used to analyze the relevant data and lack any real grasp of the computer modeling methods that are used to generate climate predictions. Consequently, most of us are largely unable to form trustworthy independent judgments about the scientific studies upon which the conclusions of climate scientists are based.

Our natural recourse, in this situation, is to rely upon the honesty of the scientific community, and the accuracy of journalistic reports which summarize scientific research for the general public. It is therefore disturbing to discover that the recent publication of hacked emails from a prominent climate research laboratory has led some to assert that the climate scientists have been lying to us.

Is there any merit to this assertion? New Scientist, a respected British science publication, says, in its current issue, that “the charge that the emails are proof of a climate change swindle is ludicrous… there is no evidence in the hundreds of emails that data is being systematically falsified or dishonestly manipulated in refereed journals.” The emails do, it appears, reveal that the scientists in the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia are passionate about their work, competitive in their search for the truth, and perhaps excessively irritated by those who deny the validity of their findings. But there is absolutely no evidence that they have, in the words of a local columnist, “falsified data.”

And even if this one group of researchers has deceived us, there have been thousands of scientific studies over the past decade disclosing the evidence for global warming, from scientists all over the world. Are the global warming deniers asking us to believe that those studies, too, are false? Are we to dismiss the reports that the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are rapidly shrinking? That polar bears are starving because the sea ice on which they hunt is disappearing? That the sea level is rising? That increased ocean temperatures and acidity are destroying coral reefs? That tropical diseases are migrating into the temperate zones?

What could plausibly compel someone to argue that the scientific consensus regarding global warming is mistaken? Well, self-interest, for one. Global warming is obviously not just an academic issue, and it’s rather likely that the coal lobby’s disbelief in global warming is motivated, in part, by the economic consequences it foresees if measures are taken to reduce the production of carbon dioxide. Political bias is another. The political Right has traditionally advocated the unrestrained exploitation of natural resources by industry, and opposed environmentalists. Greenhouse gas emission control is seen by the Right as simply another ploy of environmental extremists.

And then there are the paranoid fantasies of the conspiracy theorists. According to this line of thought (if it can be dignified by that phrase), global warming is a fiction fabricated by shadowy evil-doers and designed to frighten nations into submitting themselves to the dictates of a new trans-national government. In other words, lurking behind the innocent-looking façade of scientific research is an international conspiracy to restrict the sovereignty of the United States, impoverish its people, and take away their liberty. The scientists are not just dupes in this nefarious plot, they are “accomplices.”

We have heard all this before. It is simply a new twist on an old lie. It is a continuation of the debunked “World Government” and “New World Order” scares concocted by the ultra-right beginning in the nineteen-sixties. And before that there were the Illuminati, the Tri-lateral Commission, the Freemasons and, of course, the Jews.

This sort of hysteria over the prospect that the United States might enter into binding agreements with other nations to limit greenhouse gas production is more than just absurd; it threatens to derail international efforts to cope with global warming, and, by doing so, insure that we all will suffer the ecological and social havoc that climate change seems sure to produce.

This column has been reprinted here with permission of the author. In addition to this column, the Idaho State Journal editorial board offered an opinion titled "U.S. needs to do more than just talk about global warming."

Smorgasbord Saturday

First, let me apologize for the formatting error in my Tom Trusky post that somehow changed the font color to white in the sentence about "Idaho iPods" and therefore unable to view. I believe I've fixed the problem, though there's no telling what new formatting errors I've created in doing so.

This morning in the 11 o'clock eastern segment of the United States Senate debate on health care reform, the Republicans went wild. More appropriately, John McCain went wild. In arguing the merits of the Lincoln amendment, an amendment limiting the tax benefits of insurance industry executives, John McCain took to the floor and asked that the amendment be modified to include the executives of AARP and Walmart. No, I'm not making this up. I can only imagine the chaos that then ensued in Senator Blanche Lincoln's office. McCain continued to rail against every organization that has endorsed the health care reform legislation, stating emphatically that they'd been "bought" by Majority Leader Reid's office. A semi-unlikely choice to counter the Republicans during their time-controlled allotment was Max Baucus of Montana. Baucus stood his ground, but the Republicans, under the rules, had control of the floor and finally shut out his questions. McCain, in a rare occasion of attacking a senator personally, said for the record that he'd thought Baucus had learned the rules by now. McCain is trying to modify an amendment submitted by a colleague, which isn't doable under the rules, but he has no problem attacking another senator who he feels doesn't understand the body's rules? Of all the things to be attacking Baucus on these days... What happened to the John McCain of several years ago? More than just Sarah Palin, apparently.

In a more productive Senate speech, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania told a story of twin girls with leukemia that I found particularly moving. Perhaps I'll write something up about that later in the weekend. Later in the weekend when I plan to write about several topics...

I've mentioned before that I don't watch many shows regularly anymore, due in part to my decreasing attention span, the baseball season gets serious just as the tv season starts up, and the fact that I like to catch Countdown and the Rachel Maddow Show in the evenings. I have been catching The Amazing Race since the baseball season ended (the damn brothers are responsible for my guys, the Harlem Globetrotters, being eliminated), I try to remember to catch Fringe, but end up catching it on Hulu (where I also catch the Wanda Sykes Show) more often than not, and then there's the Friday night USA lineup. That is the USA lineup until yesterday. The fall finale of the new series White Collar was a shocker and sadly, we said goodbye to the neurotic Tony Shalhoub character Monk. Monk has been a mainstay around here and I was very impressed with the finale. Series finales are hit or miss, like 'em or hate 'em, and this one definitely was a hit. The last few moments were a look back on the series, back in the days when Sharona was Monk's Natalie and the final few moments showed Randy settling in as a New Jersey police captain (god, help New Jersey).

Beginning today is the Aid for Friends encampment at Pocatello's Caldwell Park. For those of you outside of Pocatello, Aid for Friends is the local homeless shelter. The encampment is sponsored by Aid For Friends, Modern Woodsmen of America, ISU College Democrats and the ISU Student Senate. From the press release:

"The event is a fundraiser where volunteers obtain pledges to spend the night at Caldwell Park in make-shift cardboard boxes. The event also includes a canned food and clothing drive. The annual encampment is intended to simulate homeless conditions and educate the community about the plight of our area homeless. Donations and pledges are accepted. Monies raised from this event will go toward the continued operation of the Aid For Friends homeless shelter."

The encampment begins today, December 5th, and goes through tomorrow. Caldwell Park can be located here via Google Maps.

I got an email this week from the chairperson of the Twin Falls County Democrats that said Gary Eller's "In the Middle" blog will not be returning to the Twin Fall Times-News blog lineup. Both "Conservative Corner" and "Progressive Voice" have returned with a few other blogs including "Capitol Confidential." Gary was a reasonable, moderate voice and continues to be someone I respect greatly. I hope the Times-News can find a reasonable conservative voice to add to the mix, a nice counter to the fairly liberal views of one blog and the completely outrageous, fringe views of Tom Young.

Whenever I tire of watching the debate on C-SPAN, I'm sure there will be music in my future. I actually made it through the entire week without once signing into Pandora, opening Windows Media Player on my work computer, or buying or listening to anything on iTunes. Didn't think that was possible? Neither did I! Anyway, go check out the band Tinted Windows (yes, the front man is Taylor Hanson of Hanson fame) with "Kind of a Girl" on youTube or you can download the single via iTunes. The video has a retro feel to it and I absolutely love the song!