Vivian Paige pulled together early reports and the actual court documents: A judge in Virginia quashed the subpeona issued by Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to the University of Virginia, in a rather blatant attempt to silence a famous scientist working on global warming, Michael Mann.
Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli can investigate whether fraud has occurred in university grants, as the attorney general had contended, but ruled that Cuccinelli’s subpoena failed to state a “reason to believe” that Mann had committed fraud.
The ruling is a major blow for Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic who had maintained that he was investigating whether Mann committed fraud in seeking government money for research that showed that the earth has experienced a rapid, recent warming. Mann, now at Penn State University, worked at U-Va. until 2005.
According to Peatross, the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, under which the civil investigative demand was issued, requires that the attorney general include an “objective basis” to believe that fraud has been committed. Peatross indicates that the attorney general must state the reason so that it can be reviewed by a court, which Cuccinelli failed to do.
Peatross set the subpoena aside without prejudice, meaning Cuccinelli could give the subpoena another try by rewriting the civil demand to better explain the conduct he wishes to investigate. But the judge seemed skeptical of Cuccinelli’s underlying claim about Mann, noting that Cuccinelli’s deputy maintained in a court hearing that the nature of Mann’s fraud was described in subsequent court papers in the case.
“The Court has read with care those pages and understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann’s work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia,” Peatross wrote.
Also, as suggested earlier here, the judge noted that Cuccinelli’s authority did not extend to four of the five grants questioned, because they were federal grants, not state grants. (See here, too.)
Comments at Helderman’s article show the fault lines of division on global warming — purely political faultlines.
Since opponents of action against warming so frantically publicized stolen e-mails from researchers late last year, in official proceedings scientists have smacked down skeptics on almostevery issue.
For Inglis, this is the crux of the dilemma: Republican members of Congress know “deep down” that they need to deliver conservative solutions like his tax swap. Yet, he adds, “We’re being driven as herd by these hot microphones—which are like flame throwers—that are causing people to run with fear and panic, and Republican members of Congress are afraid of being run over by that stampeding crowd.” Inglis says that it’s hard for Republicans in Congress to “summon the courage” to say no to Beck, Limbaugh, and the tea party wing. [emphasis added] “When we start just delivering rhetoric and more misinformation . . . we’re failing the conservative movement,” he says. “We’re failing the country.” Yet, he notes, Boehner and House minority whip Eric Cantor have one primary strategic calculation: Play to the tea party crowd. “It’s a dangerous strategy,” he contends, “to build conservatism on information and policies that are not credible.”
Tip of the old scrub brush to Sara Ann Maxwell.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
That’s not just irresponsible and sloppy: Boortz clearly has a grudge and will tell any falsehood to push his agenda of hatred.
Birds of a feather: Texas deficit champion Rick Perry, who refused to talk about his $18 billion deficit in Texas, with Neil Boortz, who spread a hoax about Hillary Clinton in 2008, and now spreads old hoaxes about President Obama.
Boortz posts this at his site, probably as a warning for what his philosophy of reporting is:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat
Just before Thanksgiving last year, a J. P. Morgan official wrote a humorous piece of conjecture for his weekly newsletter — a week when most of the markets in the U.S. were closed, and so there was little news. Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer for J. P. Morgan, without serious research wrote a piece wondering about what he saw as a lack of private sector experience in Obama’s cabinet in those positions in Cembalest’s view that are concerned most with job creation.
The spin meisters at American Enterprise Institute abused Cembalest’s rank conjectures as a “research report,” created a hoax saying Obama’s cabinet is the least qualified in history, and the thing went viral among otherwise ungainfully-employed bloggers (a lot like Neil Boortz).
Last year J.P. Morgan thought it might be interesting to look into the private sector experience of Obama’s Cabinet. America, after all, was in the middle of an economic disaster and the thought was that the president might actually look to some people with a record of success in the private sector for advice. So a study is done comparing Obama’s Cabinet to the cabinets of presidents going back to 1900. secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy and Housing and Urban Development were included. The J.P Morgan study looked at the percentages of cabinet members with prior private sector experience, and the results were amazing.
The presidential cabinet with the highest percentage of private sector experience was that of Dwight Eisenhower at around 58%. The lowest — until Obama — was Kennedy at about 28%. The average ran between 35% and 40% … until, as I said, Obama. Care to guess what percentage of Obama’s cabinet has prior private sector experience? Try 7%.
All totaled, Obama’s cabinet is one of the certifiably most brainy, most successful and most decorated of any president at any time. His cabinet brings extensive and extremely successful private sector experience coupled with outstanding and considerable successful experience in government and elective politics.
AEI’s claim that the cabinet lacks private sector experience is astoundingly in error, with 77% of the 22 members showing private sector experience — according to the [standards of the] bizarre chart [from AEI], putting Obama’s cabinet in the premiere levels of private sector experience. The chart looks more and more like a hoax that AEI fell sucker to — and so did others.
Boortz is eight months late, and the whole truth short. Shame on him.
Not just false stuff — old, moldy false stuff. Atlantans, and all Americans, deserve better reporting, even from hack commentators.
_____________
Coda: Sage advice, but . . .
Boortz includes this warning on his website:
ALWAYS REMEMBER
Don’t believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as “doing your homework.”
Great advice — but no excuse for sloppy reporting. He should follow his own rule. On this piece, Boortz didn’t do his homework in any fashion. He’s turning in somebody else’s crap, without reading it in advance, it appears.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
It’s an awkward scene. John Goodman has a lousy role (and I’m not fond of the direction for him or Melanie Griffith here). I’ve never seen the movie, “Born Yesterday,” and I don’t know the context.
But ten important amendments to the Constitution, to the tune of “The Twelve Days of Christmas,” a potentially useful mnemonic device for your U.S. history, and government students; it’s mostly accurate:
There is some skipping around — the song covers the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, then skips to the Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments. The First Amendment’s five freedoms are covered completely, other amendments not so much.
The actor in the scene, playing the senator who sings the Fifteenth Amendment, is former Tennessee U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson. Thompson staffed the Watergate Committee chaired by Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina, earlier — wouldn’t it be interesting to hear his views on this scene, and song, and what other tricks he may have encountered in the Senate, from Sen. Ervin, or the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd?
It’s not Schoolhouse Rock, but it’s really very good. Everything covered in the song is in Texas TEKS, but some things skipped, like the Fourteenth Amendment, are also required. Can you use it in your classes?
And by the way, does anyone know a rap for the Bill of Rights?
What’s that racket, that squealing, that ‘stuck’ pig noise?
Space-filling model of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) - Wikimedia image. Sulfur hexafluoride is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases known, with "global warming potential" 22,800 times that of CO2. EPA proposes to measure SF6 emissions as a first step toward reducing emissions. Warming deniers propose to stop the regulations.
EPA published regulations for measuring greenhouse gases as part of its CO2 emission regulatory program — and the noise is the reaction of the anti-warmists.
Here’s EPA’s press release — notice the links to longer explanations, and note especially that the regulations are not final yet, but are instead open for public comment.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 29, 2010
EPA Issues Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements for Four Emissions Sources
Agency also to consider data confidentiality
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing requirements under its national mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting program for underground coal mines, industrial wastewater treatment systems, industrial waste landfills and magnesium production facilities. The data from these sectors will provide a better understanding of GHG emissions and will help EPA and businesses develop effective policies and programs to reduce them.
Methane is the primary GHG emitted from coal mines, industrial wastewater treatment systems and industrial landfills and is more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere. The main fluorinated GHG emitted from magnesium production is sulfur hexafluoride, which has an even greater warming potential than methane, and can stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
These source categories will begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2011, with the first annual reports submitted to EPA on March 31, 2012.
In a separate proposed rule, EPA is requesting public comment on which industry related GHG information would be made publicly available and which would be considered confidential. Under the Clean Air Act, all emission data are public. Some non-emission data, however, may be considered confidential, because it relates to specific information which, if made public, could harm a business’s competitiveness. Examples of data considered confidential under this proposal include certain information reported by fossil fuel and industrial gas suppliers related to production quantities and raw materials. EPA is committed to providing the public with as much information as possible while following the law.
The GHG reporting program requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs and large direct emitters of greenhouse gases to report to EPA. Collecting this data will allow businesses to track emissions and identify cost effective ways to reduce emissions. EPA is preparing to provide data to the public after the first annual GHG reports are submitted in March 2011.
There will be a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rules that will begin upon publication in the federal register.
More information on the final rule to add reporting requirements for four source categories:
These regulations are those complained about and proposed to be stopped by critics of the campaign to stop global warming. Alaska’s pro-warming Sen. Lisa Murkowski introduced a resolution to stop these regulations, with the support of junk science lobbyists including the National Center for Policy Research. Fortunately, on June 10 the Senate voted 47-53 to reject a motion to consider the resolution, S. J. Res. 26, “A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”
Both of Texas’s senators were suckered by the junk science. Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison both co-sponsored the losing resolution. Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott filed suit to stop the regulations. Abbott’s opponent in the 2010 elections, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, probably the only one of these Texans who might understand sulfur hexafluoride’s role as a pollutant, criticized the suit and urged Abbott to spend his time protecting Texas oil fields from oil company sabotage.
Help control emissions from climate “skeptics,” and spread the good word:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
This post is seventh in a series on the education planks of the 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform.
This is an unofficial version published in advance of the final version from the Texas Democrats, but I expect very few changes.
Generally I’ll not comment on these planks just yet, but I must say that I take delight in the perhaps unintentional commentary offered in the title of this plank. I suspect the intent was to point to the bias of the State Board of Education, an imbalance of political views, and not to the sanity of the board. But, I could be wrong — the title may be just an official Democratic labeling of the Board’s actions as unbalanced behavior.
REFORM OF THE UNBALANCED STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
The right-wing Republican extremists who have dominated the State Board of Education have made a laughingstock of our state’s process for developing and implementing school curriculum standards that determine what our students learn. The damage they have done is no laughing matter. In rewriting the curriculum for social studies, English language arts, and science, they repeatedly have dismissed the sound advice of professional educators. Personal ideology, not high academic standards, has guided their work. Their skewed vision slights the contributions of racial and ethnic minorities. Their slanted versions of American history and of science mislead students and violate the separation of church and state. They use loaded language to favor the roles of right-wing organizations and activists. Led by a Rick Perry appointee as chair, this State Board of Education wants to indoctrinate, not educate, the schoolchildren of Texas. Their actions are unlikely to encourage a company to relocate and bring jobs to Texas. Any substantive changes to curriculum must be reviewed by non-partisan experts, and that review must be made public prior to any changes in curriculum by the State Board.
Texas Democrats will realign the State Board of Education with mainstream Texas values, will realign the state curriculum with objective reality and the facts of history and science, and will insist on the exercise of sober fiduciary responsibility for the Permanent School Fund, exposing and prohibiting conflicts of interest.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Stark differences show up in the resolutions and platforms of the Texas Democrats, compared to the Texas Republicans. Elections in Texas have great meaning and significance in 2010.
Messy and open to long and loud discussions as the Democrats are, final copies probably won’t be available on line until about Tuesday, after proofing and grammar editing. But you may want to be aware of a few items. In this post I offer only a very, very brief summary of the education planks, holding off on comment until I can analyze the planks further — except to note my delight at the name of the plank, “Reform of the Unbalanced State Board of Education.”
First, the convention passed at least three education resolutions guaranteed to please teachers and friends of education.
One resolution calls for stripping textbook approval authority from the State Board of Education, placing it instead with the education professionals at the Texas Education Agency.
Another resolution calls for fewer standard state tests, higher teacher pay, and repeal of the No Child Left Behind Act.
A third calls for outdoor education, to get students outside and to educate future citizens in conservation and recreation — the “No Child Left Inside Resolution.”
Some of these issues get double attention in the platform. Democrats provides four-and-a-half pages of support for education from pre-kindergarten through graduate school. It is the first series of planks in the Democratic platform, following the preamble immediately, under the major section “Education.”
Public Education Funding first calls for a “100% equitable school finance system with sufficient state revenue to allow every district to offer an exemplary program.” Democrats call for an end to reliance on the “Robin Hood” system, an extension of the 22-pupil-per-class limit, or lower limits, and asks the federal government to fully fund mandates including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Excellent Schools for Every Student calls for universal access to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, and after school programs for grades 1 through 12. Democrats want a focus on up-to-date instructional materials. One plank calls for opposition to “efforts to destroy bilingual education.” Another calls for all students to become proficient in English and “at least one other language.” This section also urges reduction in “high-stakes tests, used to punish students and school systems.”
Solving the Dropout Crisis includes an explanation that dropouts do not get jobs and pay they might otherwise get, and at a cost to all Texas households. Solutions suggested include community-wide efforts to serve at-risk students and their families, including expanded early childhood education to help at-risk students.
Effective Teachers for Every Student calls for a raise in teacher and support staff pay, “exceeding the national average.” Democrats suggest state-funded health insurance to all education employees. There are planks calling for certified teachers in every classroom, an encouragement of diversity in teachers, and teacher performance measures that look at everything teachers do. This is targeted at a Republican plank, described as “plans to use narrow test results instead.”
There is a call for beefed up pension support for retired teachers, and for the repal of “the federal government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions that unfairly reduce Social Security benfirts for educational retirees and other public employees.”
Reform of the Unbalanced State Board of Education offers few specifics, but does complain about the current SBOE’s having “made a laughingstock of our state’s process for developing and implementing school curriculum standards that determine what our students learn.” The plank specifically mentions recent fights on science standards, language arts standards, and social studies standards. Democrats also call for “sober fiduciary responsibility for the Permanent School Fund, exposing and prohibiting conflicts of interest.”
Making Our Schools Safe Havens for Learning calls for students and teachers to be safe from violence in schools, including bullying. Democrats support the Dignity for All Students Act.
Higher Education calls for opportunities to go to college to be available to all students who wish to pursue a higher education. Democrats complain about “tuition deregulation’s” effects, which they say has been to financially burden especially students from poorer families. Democrats want state support to help ease the burdens.
Community Colleges generally supports community colleges, with similar calls for funding, and support of student opportunities.
Diversity calls for support for diversity programs in schools, community colleges and universities.
A quick comparison with the platform Republicans passed at their convention in Dallas two weeks ago shows some clear lines of demarcation between the two Texas groups. The Texas Tribune, that already-great on-line publication, offers a copy of the Republican platform here. Won’t you join me in analyzing it, and the Democratic platform, and discussing the differences? Comments are open. Please do.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Nice drive to Corpus Christi for the Texas Democratic Convention. Long drive. Very long drive. One yearns for the days when flying inside Texas was much more affordable.
Interstate 35 traffic frustrates several million people a day. One cannot drive through Austin without a slowdown at any hour of most business days. Once-clear country roads are congested. Clearly that problem needs some attention.
It’s a stirring and interesting sight that greets you coming into Corpus Christi on I-37. From a distance you’ll see the massive wind farm, huge windmills cranking out electricity, almost a vision of a cleaner future through the haze. Closer into town the windmills can be seen through the industrial maze of oil refineries. It probably can’t be photographed well except from the air, but it’s an interesting juxtaposition of the changes Texas lives through, and the challenges ahead. I was reminded of the “successful labor-management negotiation” workshops:
Hope for the future, a picture of reality . . . now, what are the plans to proceed?
Bill White’s speech pleased the crowd. Not fire and brimstone; enough humor that most delegates smiled all the way through, but full of substantive contrasts between Rick Perry’s policies and those White wishes to pursue instead. Parts of the speech carry the mark of brilliant speech writing, especially in the breezy, pleasant way White paints the policy differences. Here’s the end of the speech:
Rick Perry will claim he represents Texas values. But Perry’s Texas is different than our Texas.
In Rick Perry’s Texas insurance and utility rates rise faster than in other states. In our Texas wages will go up faster because we invest in people.
In Rick Perry’s Texas we import nurses and welders and other skilled workers from abroad. In our Texas we will train more Texans to do those jobs.
In Rick Perry’s Texas the State Board of Education injects political ideology into classrooms. In our Texas we’ll put more computers in our classrooms.
In Rick Perry’s Texas state boards and agencies are pressured from the top to serve those who help the Governor’s re-election. In our Texas government will be the servant, not the master, and our customers will be ordinary Texans.
In Rick Perry’s Texas the governor threatens to leave the world’s greatest country. He is content [to] allow our state to compete with Mississippi for lack of social progress. In our Texas other states will follow Texas because we will be the leader.
In Rick Perry’s Texas citizens are stuck in traffic in big cities because the Texas Department of Transportation was doing the bidding of a foreign company promoting the land grab known as the Trans-Texas Corridor. In our Texas we will work across party lines for a new mobility plan, assisting commuters to get from home to work and all communities to get their goods to market.
In Rick Perry’s Texas the best days may be behind us. In our Texas our best days are ahead of us.
Let us go from this convention, staffing phone banks, knocking on doors, and sending emails. Lift up all who share our values, from the courthouse to the statehouse to the double-wide trailer Andrea and I will live in while the Mansion is rebuilt. Describe to friends and neighbors, from both parties, the simple choice we face in the governor’s race.
Rick Perry is in it for Rick Perry. By the grace of God and with your help, I’m in it for Texas, for you.
Bill White, after his speech at the Texas Democratic Convention - R. G. Ratcliff photo, Houston Chronicle blogs
It was one of the most positive speeches I’ve heard at conventions in a long time — takes me back to Mo Udall at the 1976 National Democratic Convention, or Ted Kennedy’s at the 1980 convention. White came down in favor of education, roads and lower taxes, and good government in general. Cleverly, astoundingly, each of his jabs at Rick Perry was on a substantive, policy issue, and not just a one-liner. No lipstick on pigs, not even a silver foot-in-the-mouth (apologies to Ann Richards, but not to Sarah Palin).
“In delivering one of the most negative speeches by a nominee for Texas governor in modern history, Bill White continues to run a campaign of no substance,” said Perry campaign spokesperson Mark Miner. “Governor Perry’s proven leadership, Texas values, and priorities of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and job creation have made our state the envy of the nation.”
The race is on, and the choices are already very, very clear.
Update:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
First time in years I’ve gotten solid information from a politician that didn’t come wrapped in a plea for money. I got a message from President Obama today (I’m sure a few million of his closest friends got the same one):
Ed —
Yesterday, I visited Caminada Bay in Grand Isle, Louisiana — one of the first places to feel the devastation wrought by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While I was here, at Camerdelle’s Live Bait shop, I met with a group of local residents and small business owners.
Folks like Floyd Lasseigne, a fourth-generation oyster fisherman. This is the time of year when he ordinarily earns a lot of his income. But his oyster bed has likely been destroyed by the spill.
Terry Vegas had a similar story. He quit the 8th grade to become a shrimper with his grandfather. Ever since, he’s earned his living during shrimping season — working long, grueling days so that he could earn enough money to support himself year-round. But today, the waters where he has worked are closed. And every day, as the spill worsens, he loses hope that he will be able to return to the life he built.
Here, this spill has not just damaged livelihoods. It has upended whole communities. And the fury people feel is not just about the money they have lost. It is about the wrenching recognition that this time their lives may never be the same.
These people work hard. They meet their responsibilities. But now because of a manmade catastrophe — one that is not their fault and beyond their control — their lives have been thrown into turmoil. It is brutally unfair. And what I told these men and women is that I will stand with the people of the Gulf Coast until they are again made whole.
That is why, from the beginning, we have worked to deploy every tool at our disposal to respond to this crisis. Today, there are more than 20,000 people working around the clock to contain and clean up this spill. I have authorized 17,500 National Guard troops to participate in the response. More than 1,900 vessels are aiding in the containment and cleanup effort. We have convened hundreds of top scientists and engineers from around the world. This is the largest response to an environmental disaster of this kind in the history of our country.
We have also ordered BP to pay economic injury claims, and this week, the federal government sent BP a preliminary bill for $69 million to pay back American taxpayers for some of the costs of the response so far. In addition, after an emergency safety review, we are putting in place aggressive new operating standards for offshore drilling. And I have appointed a bipartisan commission to look into the causes of this spill. If laws are inadequate, they will be changed. If oversight was lacking, it will be strengthened. And if laws were broken, those responsible will be brought to justice.
These are hard times in Louisiana and across the Gulf Coast, an area that has already seen more than its fair share of troubles. The people of this region have met this terrible catastrophe with seemingly boundless strength and character in defense of their way of life. What we owe them is a commitment by our nation to match the resilience they have shown. That is our mission. And it is one we will fulfill.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Good news is that BP now reports some success in stopping the flow of oil. Information flows increase, oil flows decrease — good trends.
Caption from the White House: President Barack Obama talks with U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen, who is serving as the National Incident Commander, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, aboard Marine One as they fly along the coastline from Venice to New Orleans, La., May 2, 2010. John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, is in the background. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza). (This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.)
As evidenced by this announcement of newly-proposed regulations on pesticides in water.
From the EPA, pure and unedited:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2010
EPA Proposes New Permit Requirements for Pesticide Discharges
Action would reduce amount of pesticides discharged and protect America ’s waters
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new permit requirement that would decrease the amount of pesticides discharged to our nation’s waters and protect human health and the environment. This action is in response to an April 9, 2009 court decision that found that pesticide discharges to U.S. waters were pollutants, thus requiring a permit.
The proposed permit, released for public comment and developed in collaboration with states, would require all operators to reduce pesticide discharges by using the lowest effective amount of pesticide, prevent leaks and spills, calibrate equipment and monitor for and report adverse incidents. Additional controls, such as integrated pest management practices, are built into the permit for operators who exceed an annual treatment area threshold.
“EPA believes this draft permit strikes a balance between using pesticides to control pests and protecting human health and water quality,” said Peter S. Silva, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water.
EPA estimates that the pesticide general permit will affect approximately 35,000 pesticide applicators nationally that perform approximately half a million pesticide applications annually. The agency’s draft permit covers the following pesticide uses: (1) mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) aquatic weed and algae control; (3) aquatic nuisance animal control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. It does not cover terrestrial applications to control pests on agricultural crops or forest floors. EPA is soliciting public comment on whether additional use patterns should be covered by this general permit.
The agency plans to finalize the permit in December 2010. It will take effect April 9, 2011. Once finalized, the pesticide general permit will be used in states, territories, tribal lands, and federal facilities where EPA is the authorized permitting authority. In the remaining 44 states, states will issue the pesticide general permits. EPA has been working closely with these states to concurrently develop their permits.
EPA will hold three public meetings, a public hearing and a webcast on the draft general permit to present the proposed requirements of the permit, the basis for those requirements and to answer questions. EPA will accept written comments on the draft permit for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Let me repeat for emphasis, from the press release: “EPA will accept written comments on the draft permit for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.”
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Not having had to suffer through any of my lectures, Jim suggested me for Secretary of Education. As the powerless go, high school teachers and Secretary of Education are on a par. Sort of a lateral move.
Also, my list is way too laden with white dudes. I know that there are more women bloggers and bloggers of color who would enhance any cabinet, but I’m having a hard time coming up with those who have a distinct policy area — likely the fault of not reading widely enough.
Anyway, here are a few thoughts, but I definitely want to hear your line-ups.
Secretary of State – Josh Marshall – Why? Because I said so.
Secretary of Treasury – Atrios – Really is there any other choice
Sec. of Health and Human Services – Ezra Klein — who else is going to read all those regs.
Attorney General – Scott Lemieux — And no, not a fucking chance.
Secretary of Transportation – Matt Yglesias — Supertrain! (Or maybe HUD)
Secretary of the Interior – Our own minstrel hussein boy — He’s got the rez cred and he can cook.
EPA Director – litbrit – She’d be all over those pollutin’ muthafuckas
Secretary of Education – ari — Maybe he’d have to arm wrestle Eric Rauchway for it.
Secretary of Labor – Who do you think? Nathan Newman, of course.
Chairman of the EEOC – Pam Spaulding – (Chairperson?)
Chairman of the Fed – Bill McBride of Calculated Risk
National Endowment of the Arts – Roy Edroso
And how about Amanda as Chief of Staff — she’d be tough with the right people — and Markos as the DNC Chair.
How about your suggestions for fantasy blogger cabinet?
Best deal: Track those posts down. As I did, you’ll find some good blogs that should be on your reading list, but probably aren’t. Ideas, now those are powerful things.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Do you weary, as I do, of global warming disbelievers* who say, with a straight face, that global warming is no problem on Earth because other planets in our solar system are also warming?
I mean, they say it as if there were a connection, as if it meant anything — does it weary you?
Photograph of sunglint and the Earth’s limb from the Internation Space Station Expedition 22.
Eli Rabett is doing the hard-but-necessary academic task of combing through the official responses EPA scientists gave to comments on their proposals to regulate greenhouse gases. Such regulations must be published in the Federal Register, and upon publication they must be open to public comment for a while, usually at least 30 days.
Ain’t our democratic republic wonderful? Agencies are required to answer the comments, even stupid comments, even stupid comments from political hacks bent on making political points instead of shining light.
And, Eli has teased out EPA’s responses to the claims that warming on Earth is no problem because there is warming on other planets, so we can blame warming on God or the Sun, and do nothing.
* “Disbelievers?” Still searching for a word to substitute for “denialist” which doesn’t offend the denialists, but doesn’t let them off the hook for being silly, either.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Or, until that account is unsuspended by the forces supporting Donald Trump: Follow @FillmoreWhite, the account of the Millard Fillmore White House Library
We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!
Retired teacher of law, economics, history, AP government, psychology and science. Former speechwriter, press guy and legislative aide in U.S. Senate. Former Department of Education. Former airline real estate, telecom towers, Big 6 (that old!) consultant. Lab and field research in air pollution control.
My blog, Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, is a continuing experiment to test how to use blogs to improve and speed up learning processes for students, perhaps by making some of the courses actually interesting. It is a blog for teachers, to see if we can use blogs. It is for people interested in social studies and social studies education, to see if we can learn to get it right. It's a blog for science fans, to promote good science and good science policy. It's a blog for people interested in good government and how to achieve it.
BS in Mass Communication, University of Utah
Graduate study in Rhetoric and Speech Communication, University of Arizona
JD from the National Law Center, George Washington University
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
EPA posts greenhouse gas reporting requirements
June 29, 2010What’s that racket, that squealing, that ‘stuck’ pig noise?
Space-filling model of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) - Wikimedia image. Sulfur hexafluoride is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases known, with "global warming potential" 22,800 times that of CO2. EPA proposes to measure SF6 emissions as a first step toward reducing emissions. Warming deniers propose to stop the regulations.
EPA published regulations for measuring greenhouse gases as part of its CO2 emission regulatory program — and the noise is the reaction of the anti-warmists.
Here’s EPA’s press release — notice the links to longer explanations, and note especially that the regulations are not final yet, but are instead open for public comment.
These regulations are those complained about and proposed to be stopped by critics of the campaign to stop global warming. Alaska’s pro-warming Sen. Lisa Murkowski introduced a resolution to stop these regulations, with the support of junk science lobbyists including the National Center for Policy Research. Fortunately, on June 10 the Senate voted 47-53 to reject a motion to consider the resolution, S. J. Res. 26, “A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”
Both of Texas’s senators were suckered by the junk science. Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison both co-sponsored the losing resolution. Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott filed suit to stop the regulations. Abbott’s opponent in the 2010 elections, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, probably the only one of these Texans who might understand sulfur hexafluoride’s role as a pollutant, criticized the suit and urged Abbott to spend his time protecting Texas oil fields from oil company sabotage.
Help control emissions from climate “skeptics,” and spread the good word:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.