There are some interesting developments in the saga of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, convicted in 2006 of bribery after what appears to have been a politically motivated prosecution. The Birmingham News reports:

Former Gov. Don Siegelman asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to toss out his conviction, saying prosecutors confused campaign contributions for bribes.

Siegelman's lawyers argued the trial judge made multiple errors at the 2006 trial.

"We believe we will be successful in the appeal and all the convictions on all counts will be overturned," Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn said.

Siegelman, a Democrat, was released from federal prison in March pending the outcome of his appeal.

Also yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers issued a subpoena to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff and key Bush advisor Karl Rove, demanding testimony about his role in the firing of U.S. attorneys as well as the Siegelman prosecution.

In addition, Conyers disclosed that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has opened an investigation into selective prosecution of Siegelman and at least three others, the Washington Post reports.

"I think this will make Watergate look like child's play," Siegelman said in a recent interview with the Anniston Star.

Labels: Alabama, corruption, don siegelman, karl rove, politics

We got an anonymous comment yesterday from someone responding to Chris's recent post about the South Carolina church sign asking if "Obama" and "Osama" were brothers. As comment moderator, I aim to avoid spreading misinformation in our forum. But I wanted to share this particular comment with readers, because it repeats a lie that unfortunately is believed by too many Americans and that needs to be confronted. Here's the relevant excerpt:

This is just another case of "just don't get it!" The sign has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE or POLITICS. It has everything to do with RELIGION. The church is trying to get people in America to get their heads out of the sand and recognize a religious problem. I thought that was what churches were supposed to deal with.

Radical Islamists have declared war on America and the rest of the "Infidels" in the western part of this world. They have very plainly stated their intention is to kill us. They teach it in their schools where Obama attended.

It's true, unfortunately, that radical Islamists have declared war on America and want to kill us. And it's true that there are schools where this ideology is taught.

However, Obama did not attend them.

During his family's stay in Indonesia, the young Obama attended both Catholic and Muslim schools. But the Muslim schools he attended were no more "radical" than the Catholic ones. These were mainstream institutions, where children learned about religion, yes, but also basic subjects like reading and math. These schools were nothing like the madrassas that "educated" Afghanistan's Taliban, where students were taught a narrow interpretation of the Qur'an through rote repetition.

But in fact, the very idea of madrassas as terrorist factories may be mistaken -- at least according to a 2006 Washington Quarterly article titled "The Madrassa Scapegoat" by Johns Hopkins Professor Peter Bergen and Los Angeles Times writer Swati Pandey:

...[C]areful examination of the 79 terrorists responsible for five of the worst anti-Western terrorist attacks in recent memory—the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Africa embassy bombings in 1998, the September 11 attacks, the Bali nightclub bombings in 2002, and the London bombings on July 7, 2005—reveals that only in rare cases were madrassa graduates involved. All of those credited with masterminding the five terrorist attacks had university degrees, and none of them had attended a madrassa. Within our entire sample, only 11 percent of the terrorists had attended madrassas. (For about one-fifth of the terrorists, educational background could not be determined by examining the public record.) Yet, more than half of the group we assessed attended a university, making them as well educated as the average American: whereas 54 percent of the terrorists were found to have had some college education or to have graduated from university, only 52 percent of Americans can claim similar academic credentials.

For a thorough debunking of the Obama madrassa myth, see Jonathan Alter's Newsweek story from last January titled "Behind the 'Madrassa Hoax,'" which explains how this untruth was spread by right-wing media and used to slime not only Obama but also the Clinton campaign, which was wrongly named as the source of the misinformation. Also, Media Matters for America has assembled a timeline showing how the smear was spread.

Labels: barack obama, Election 2008, hillary clinton, media, politics

Remember the curious glitch that prevented a CBS affliliate in northern Alabama from airing the recent 60 Minutes' report -- and that report only -- on the politics behind the controversial prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman? Well, the Federal Communications Commission has launched an inquiry into the incident, Reuters reports:

The FCC issued a "notice of inquiry" to WHNT, a CBS affiliate in Huntsville, Alabama, in connection with an outage that cut off a segment of the February 24 broadcast of "60 Minutes," an FCC spokeswoman said.

WHNT, which has blamed the black-out on equipment failure, has 30 days to respond with an explanation of what happened in the incident.

The inquiry came at the request of Commissioner Michael Copps, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member body. The agency's chairman, Kevin Martin, is a Republican.

WHNT is owned by an investment firm whose founder's family has close ties to the Bushes, and it's managed by Local TV, a company headed by a former Clear Channel Communications executive and major Bush contributor. After initially blaming the blackout on a CBS transmission problem, the station management has since maintained that the problem was caused at the receiving end by an equipment failure that cut off the feed. The station later re-aired the segment twice.

The FCC inquiry comes amid mounting calls from across the political spectrum for Siegelman to be freed from prison and for the case to be investigated. Last week former Former Reagan Treasury official and Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts joined the chorus, writing in CounterPunch that Siegelman "was framed in a crooked trial ... and sent to Federal prison by the corrupt and immoral Bush Administration."

Labels: Alabama, criminal justice, don siegelman, FCC, karl rove, media, politics

A top executive at WHNT in Huntsville, Ala. denies that his TV station intentionally blacked out the CBS "60 Minutes" report about the politically motivated prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman -- even though the 12-minute blackout came just as the report started, and ended just as the report drew to a close. The New York Times reported yesterday:

"We know what our license means to us," said Stan Pylant, the chief executive at the station. "There were no political motives in this."

Pylant blamed the mysterious blackout on a signal receiver, which strangely enough had no problems receiving CBS's feed up until the report started or after it ended. Somehow it managed to malfunction only during the report on Siegelman.

As we previously noted, WHNT is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, an investment company managed by prominent supporters of President Bush, whose former advisor Karl Rove was implicated in the "60 Minutes" Siegelman investigation. But as the New York Times notes, the station is managed by a separate company, Local TV -- whose chief executive, Robert "Bobby" Lawrence, is a former Clear Channel Communications executive and also a major Bush contributor.

In an editorial in today's paper, the New York Times sounds skeptical about WHNT's explanation. The paper points out that in 1955, when Mississippi NBC affiliate WLBT didn't want to run a network report about desegregation, it hung up a sign that said, "Sorry, Cable Trouble." The editorial concludes:

In 1969, the F.C.C. revoked the license of WLBT in Jackson after the commission established a systematic effort by the broadcaster to suppress information about the civil rights movement. Today, broadcast rules have changed, giving stations more leeway to decide what to air. Dropping a single report is unlikely to set the regulators in motion. Still, it would be deeply troubling if a partisan broadcaster could suppress information on the public airwaves and hide behind a technical fig leaf.

In this case, if the blackout was intentional, it may also have been counterproductive. Rather than take attention away from allegations that Mr. Siegelman was the victim of a partisan campaign, WHNT’s technical glitch seems to lend support to the charge.

Labels: Alabama, don siegelman, karl rove, media, politics

WHNT -- the CBS affiliate for northern Alabama where the "60 Minutes" report on former Gov. Don Siegelman's controversial prosecution was blacked out last night -- is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners. The investment firm was founded by billionaire Texan Robert Bass, the son of oilman Perry Richardson Bass. Robert's brother Ed was a Yale classmate and personal friend of George W. Bush, and along with brother Lee they put up $25 million to finance Harken Oil in the late 1980s while George W. Bush was serving on the board of directors.

The Bass brothers' political action committees donated more than $200,000 to Bush's gubernatorial campaigns, while their personal donations topped $270,000, according to UTWatch.org. Lee Bass was also among the Bush Pioneers in 2000 and 2004, raising at least $100,000 for the presidential campaign in each election cycle, according to Texans for Public Justice.

Meanwhile, Harper's Scott Horton -- who has been following the Siegelman story closely -- reports that the station's general manager initially gave an incorrect explanation for the broadcast failure, blaming it on "network problems." He also notes that the station "was noteworthy for its hostility to Siegelman and support for his Republican adversary."

Labels: Alabama, don siegelman, karl rove, media, politics

Last night the CBS show "60 minutes" aired a powerful report on what appears to be the politically motivated prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Unfortunately, viewers in northern Alabama who tuned in to watch the show found a black screen during most of the Siegelman piece. Reports Facing South reader mooncat:

Strange coincidence, but WHNT, the local CBS affiliate in Huntsville AL which covers the northern part of the state, had "technical problems" during the Siegelman segment of 60 Minutes tonight. They showed a black screen for the first 12 to 13 minutes of the show, including most of the Siegelman story.

They caught a lot of flack from viewers and did rebroadcast that segment in its entirety at about 10:20 pm.

The station said the problem was at its end and blamed it on a failed satellite receiver.

Labels: Alabama, don siegelman, karl rove, media, politics

Apparently Muslim extremists aren't the only ones angered by irreverent political cartoons.

Kentucky state Rep. Jim Gooch, a Democrat who chairs the Natural Resources and Environment Committee, is unhappy about the way he's been portrayed by editorial cartoonists because of his efforts to kill a coal mine safety bill and declare global warming a hoax. One recent cartoon showed him basking in a hot tub with King Coal.

In response, Gooch is pushing legislation that would classify editorial cartoonists and editorial writers as lobbyists, which would effectively ban them from the House and Senate chambers while lawmakers are in session. David Thompson, executive director of the Kentucky Press Association, told the Associated Press that the legislation is an obvious First Amendment violation:

"If I had to classify it, I think it's harassment."

But Gooch claims his bill is simply an effort to rein in abuses by a too-free press:

"It’s almost as if they want to silence you," he said. "They want to hurt your credibility. They do it by either trying to make you look stupid or corrupt."

As you may recall, Gooch is the same fellow who held a hearing on global warming but declined to invite any scientists. Instead, the featured speakers were Lord Christopher Monckton, an adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who once called for HIV/AIDS patients to be locked up for life, and James Taylor, a Florida-based fellow with the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute, which a Facing South investigation found has been fighting state efforts to regulate greenhouse gas pollution.

(Photo of Jim Gooch from Kentucky House of Representatives' Web site)

Labels: coal, global warming, kentucky, media, politics

Today's issue of Stateside Dispatch, a publication of the Progressive States Network, takes a critical look at conservative efforts to squelch dissent on college campuses. In the right's latest attempt to discourage viewpoints it deems politically unpalatable, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni -- an organization founded in 1995 by Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne -- is promoting what it calls "Intellectual Diversity" legislation. Based on the concern that academics are overwhelmingly left-leaning, the legislation mandates that professors remain ideologically neutral in the classroom and creates state councils to monitor views being presented.

According to PSN, such bills have been introduced this year in 10 states, with half of those in the South: Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, West Virginia and Louisiana. The version introduced in Virginia -- which was scaled back somewhat from the model legislation and passed the state House unanimously -- requires schools to report to the state council on higher education and the legislature on efforts to promote the free exchange of ideas.

Interestingly, at least one state that's looked into whether there are problems with the free exchange of ideas in the academy due to left-wing bias have found none. Several years ago, Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled state House created a special legislative committee to investigate whether students who hold unpopular views need protection. In November 2006, the committee issued a report that said it found no evidence of widespread problems.

The "Intellectual Diversity" legislation is based on the controversial ideas of left-wing radical-turned-right-wing radical David Horowitz, author of The Professors: The 100 Most Dangerous Academics in America, which targets professors from Southern schools including Baylor, Duke, Emory, North Carolina State, Texas A&M, University of Kentucky, University of South Florida, and the University of Texas. One of the academics Horowitz has singled out, UT-Austin Communication Studies Professor Dana Cloud, has written of the hate mail, physical threats and other harassment she's experienced as a result of being targeted by Horowitz, whose tactics she's likened to McCarthyism. She also reports how students in the Horowitz-founded Students for Academic Freedom keep a watch list and encourage the reporting of professors who exhibit "bias":

... which could mean anything from telling a Bush joke to encouraging students to think critically about gender; but NEVER means talking about capitalism in the business school or celebrating corporate culture in the advertising department ...

Labels: higher education, politics

Yesterday, President Bush signed this year's bill for military spending. But as Congressional Quarterly reports today (sub required), he did so only while promising to ignore measures in the bill to ensure accountability for spending and promote self-determination in Iraq:

President Bush signed the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill into law Monday, but not before stating that he reserves the right to disregard several sections.

One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq’s oil money.

The Institute has long been calling for a "Truman Commission" to ensure oversight of contracting dollars, and it was a major victory for this language to be included in the bill. It's also the first piece that Bush has pledged to side-step, according to CQ:

The first statute Bush considers optional is a provision written by Democratic senators Jim Webb of Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri that would set up a latter-day version of the Truman Committee to look into “waste, fraud and abuse” in contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One area of inquiry would be private security contractors such as Blackwater Worldwide.

Labels: peace and security, politics

During his final State of the Union Address delivered last night, President Bush announced that this April's North American Leaders' Summit will be held in New Orleans:

Tonight the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast. America honors the strength and resilience of the people of this region. We reaffirm our pledge to help them build stronger and better than before. And tonight I'm pleased to announce that in April we will host this year's North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans.

Started in 2005 as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, the inaugural summit was held at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, with subsequent annual meetings taking place in the Mexican resort city of Cancun and the Canadian capital of Ottawa. The leaders of the three nations also met for a second time last year in August in Quebec. The president offered no details on exactly when or where the New Orleans summit would take place.

The news has been greeted with enthusiasm by political leaders, earning a standing ovation from Congress and the praise of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that it was a sign "New Orleans is open for business." Louisiana Recovery Authority Chairman Norman Francis noted that the gathering will give Louisiana a chance "to highlight both our progress and our remaining needs to the nation and world."

The summit is also likely to test New Orleans' police force. Last August's gathering in Quebec drew hundreds of labor, trade and environmental activists, with police using tear gas and pepper spray against some protesters who were throwing rocks and branches. The Security and Prosperity Partnership has been criticized as undemocratic and for promoting a corporate-driven agenda --- much like the Bush administration's Katrina recovery efforts.

New Orleans' appearance in the president's speech comes after he faced criticism over last year's address, which made no mention of the Gulf region's continuing struggle to recover from the 2005 hurricanes. In another nod to the region, jazz trumpeter and New Orleans native Irvin Mayfield Jr. sat in Laura Bush's guest box during the speech. The Times-Picayune reports that the 30-year-old artist and educator also played a concert at the White House prior to the speech with a bejeweled instrument dubbed the "Elysian Trumpet" in honor of Irvin Mayfield Sr., whose body was found on New Orleans' Elysian Fields Avenue after Katrina's floodwaters receded.

(White House photo by David Bohrer)

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, new orleans, politics

Thompson quits presidential race

"Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort," the former Tennessee senator said in a brief statement.
Thompson's fate was sealed last Saturday in the South Carolina primary, when he finished third in a state that he had said he needed to win.

So that leaves Huckabee and Paul for the Republicans and Edwards for the Democrats as the only Southern candidates left in the race. (Although some might consider Hillary Clinton an honorary Southerner.)

If the eventual nominees aren't from the South, how will they balance their tickets and fine tune their message to appeal to Southern voters? And don't think they aren't thinking about it.

From this Sunday's New York Times Magazine:

It has been in vogue throughout the Bush years for Democrats to assert that the South is unredeemable and politically unnecessary. I remember seeing Kerry speak at Dartmouth College in the days before the 2004 New Hampshire primary, when he flatly told the audience that a Democratic nominee could win the presidency without worrying about the South. [..] In “Whistling Past Dixie,” Schaller marshaled a pile of statistics to argue, essentially, that the region’s long legacy of prejudice left it hopelessly blind to the nobility of the Democratic cause.

[..] Other Democrats, like Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor, short-lived presidential hopeful and now Senate candidate, have argued that if the party aspires to build a real governing majority like the one it enjoyed for much of the 20th century, it will have to at least compete seriously in the South. [..] What’s more, as some of the sharper Democratic strategists have realized, reaching voters down South isn’t only about the South. Culturally and ideologically, there isn’t much that separates most Southern, independent white voters from those who live in exurban Ohio or in rural Missouri.

Read the whole thing for some interesting thoughts on the New South as a testing ground for candidates and strategies that will work in swing states all across America.

Labels: Election 2008, politics

...and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."

So concludes a statement by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about its report [PDF] released yesterday on the findings of a 16-month investigation into allegations of political interference with government climate change science. According to the statement:

In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal "Communications Action Plan" that stated: "Victory will be achieved when … average citizens 'understand' uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'" The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry's communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.

The Bush administration had help with its efforts to mislead policymakers and the public from outfits like the John Locke Foundation of North Carolina. As we recently reported, the fossil-fuel-funded think tank is currently trying to scuttle state-level efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by exaggerating the uncertainty around the reality and seriousness of climate change, and by emphasizing the costs of addressing the problem while ignoring the costs of doing nothing.

Labels: climate, politics

MEDIA ADVISORY

For immediate release: Monday, December 10, 2007

For more information, contact:

Ajamu Dillahunt (856-3194; ajamu@ncjustice.org)
Chris Kromm (419-8311 x26; chris@southernstudies.org)

Katrina Victims, Allies to Hold Press Conference at Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s Office Demanding Homes for New Orleans!

Senate inaction on a key housing bill is worsening skyrocketing homelessness problem

RALEIGH, N.C. – Today, victims of Hurricane Katrina and local advocates will hold a press conference at Sen. Elizabeth Dole's (R-NC) office in Raleigh calling on the senator to take action to save homes in the still-devastated Gulf Coast region.

Homelessness in New Orleans has doubled since Katrina struck in August 2005, according to recent reports, and thousands of families still live in temporary FEMA housing. Yet despite a housing shortage, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has authorized the demolition of more than 4,000 units of public housing in New Orleans – most of it barely damaged by Katrina. The homes are slated to be razed this week, without provisions for replacing them with affordable units.

At the same time, Congressional legislation to help homeowners, renters and public housing residents hurt by Katrina – the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act (S. 1668) – has languished for months in the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, on which Sen. Dole sits. A bill with the same name (H.R. 1227) passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 302-125 in March.

"I am asking Senators to find it in their heart and good conscience to support the public housing community in New Orleans and affordable housing for those renters displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita by allowing S. 1668 to move forward," said Nana Nantambu, a displaced New Orleans resident now living in North Carolina.

"When Katrina hit, Washington leaders pledged to do what it takes and stay as long as it takes, to rebuild the Gulf Coast," said Chris Kromm, director of the Durham-based Institute for Southern Studies, which has closely monitored the Katrina recovery. "This holiday season, with thousands of Gulf families on the streets or in cramped FEMA trailers, Sen. Dole and others in the Senate must take action and make good on their promises."

Demonstrations are taking place across the country today – International Human Rights Day – calling on Washington leaders to take action for Katrina families.

WHAT: Press conference calling on Sen. Elizabeth Dole to help New Orleans and Gulf Coast residents get homes

WHEN: 12:45 pm, Monday, Dec. 10 (U.N. Human Rights Day)

WHERE: Sen. Elizabeth Dole's office, 310 New Bern Ave, Raleigh (corner of Person and New Bern)

WHO: Katrina victims in North Carolina, the Institute for Southern Studies, and others concerned about the Gulf Coast housing crisis

For more information on the issue of housing in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast after Katrina, visit the Institute’s Gulf Watch project: www.southernstudies.org/gulfwatch

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, housing, politics

Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (H.R. 6), a wide-ranging measure that promotes renewable energy sources, improves automotive fuel economy and boosts production of homegrown biofuels. According to the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the measure would also benefit the South's economy.

"A very important measure in this bill is the 15 percent renewable electricity standard for utilities that will dramatically increase renewable sources of electricity," says SACE Executive Director Stephen Smith. "We are pleased to see that the House has rejected the false assumptions that the Southeast does not have renewable energy potential, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy’s analysis shows that this standard will significantly boost clean energy production in our region."

The Southeast has abundant renewable energy potential, but the region has lacked economic incentives to encourage renewable energy production and stimulate job growth, Smith says. This measure provides those incentives.

The legislation offers a $21 billion tax package providing renewable energy incentives that it pays for by repealing oil and gas industry tax breaks and extending production tax credits for cellulosic fuels and renewable energy sources including wind and solar power. It also requires cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to achieve a minimum fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 -- the first congressionally mandated increase in corporate average fuel economy standards since 1975.

In addition, the bill imposes a five-fold increase in the biofuels mandate, requiring that 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels be blended with gasoline by 2022. That measure is controversial among some environmental advocates such as the folks at the Energy Justice Network, who warn that such a dramatic expansion in biofuels production and use will prove catastrophic for food prices, agriculture, water and soil depletion, food security, and deforestation, and would even worsen air quality and global warming. For their take on the problems with ethanol, click here.

The bill has moved to the Senate, where Republicans today blocked a vote on the measure, forcing negotiations that will likely result in a scaled-down version. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) criticized the House-approved version as "a massive tax hike, and a utility rate increase for consumers across the southeast." Meanwhile, President Bush has threatened to veto anything resembling the House version.

For more details on the legislation, visit the Union of Concerned Scientists' Energy Bill Resource Center.

Labels: economy, energy policy, politics

We recently reported on the effort led by the fossil-fuel-funded John Locke Foundation and Heartland Institute to scuttle North Carolina's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas pollution. Among their arguments against addressing such pollution: the biblical End Times are coming, so what's a little warming anyway?

Well, one of the latest states to be subjected to the wacky ideas of the climate change doubters is Kentucky. Last month, state Rep. Jim Gooch -- the Kentucky Democrats' chief environmental strategist and longtime coal industry buddy -- held a hearing on global warming but declined to invite any scientists to speak. Instead, he invited Lord Christopher Monckton ("the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley"), an adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who once called for HIV/AIDS patients to be locked up for life, and James Taylor, a Florida-based fellow with the Heartland Institute.

Taylor blatantly lied to the lawmakers, claiming that "most scientists don't believe in global warming." He also claimed that warmer weather would allow "our children" to "enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life." Monckton, meanwhile, quoted the Bible while claiming global warming was a myth perpetuated by Al Gore, the United Nations, Hollywood and the media.

After protests by lawmakers over the unbalanced two-hour presentation, Gooch allowed two environmentalists from the audience to speak for a few minutes. Read about the whole debacle in this story from the Kentucky Herald-Leader.

Labels: climate, kentucky, politics

Storms bringing heavy rainfall are now 24 percent more frequent across the United States today than they were 60 years ago, including in many areas of the South. That confirms scientists' warnings that a warming global climate will bring more extreme weather events, from prolonged droughts such as the one currently afflicting the Southeast to more heavy rainstorms.

The storm findings come from a new report by Environment America, which looked at trends in the frequency of big rain and snow events across the continental United States from 1948 to 2006.

"This report demonstrates that we are already seeing the effects of global warming even with a relatively small increase in temperatures," said Dr. William Moomaw, director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy at The Tufts University Fletcher School and a member of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The projected increases are much greater, and the impacts are already much more than was predicted. It is imperative that we begin now to reduce the emissions of heat trapping gases to avoid serious and uncontrollable damage."

While New England and the Mid-Atlantic region experienced the biggest increases in storms with heavy precipitation at 61 and 42 percent respectively, the frequency of such strong storms has also increased significantly in many Southern states, including Louisiana (52 percent), West Virginia (40 percent), Alabama (35 percent), Mississippi (34 percent), Texas (28 percent), Virginia (25 percent), Tennessee (21 percent), Kentucky and North Carolina (16 percent), and Georgia and South Carolina (14 percent).

While the frequency of such storms decreased in Arkansas (by 1 percent) and Florida (by 12 percent), at least one Florida community experienced significant increases in heavy rainfall events: the Sarasota-Bradenton metro area, with a 95 percent increase. Other Southern metro areas with big increases in extreme rainstorms included Jackson, Miss. (187 percent); Baton Rouge, La. (110 percent); the Augusta-Aiken area in Georgia and South Carolina ( 84 percent); Mobile, Ala. (80 percent); and New Orleans and El Paso, Texas (51 percent).

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is expected to begin work today on historic legislation to address global warming -- the Lieberman-Warner Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191), sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.). The bill would cap greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them by 60 percent by 2050 through a system under which companies are assigned pollution credits that can be bought, sold and traded. By midday yesterday, Republican critics of the measure led by global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) had filed more than 150 amendments that would weaken the bill's efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Meanwhile, Environment America Director Anna Aurilio says the bill’s current pollution reduction targets fall short of what's necessary to avoid the worst effects of global warming. At the same time, the legislation subsidizes dirty and dangerous energy sources. For Environment America's analysis of the legislation and proposed amendments, click here.

According to the latest science, the United States must reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions by at least 15 percent by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by 2050 in order to stave off the worst effects of global warming.

(Photo of July 2007 Texas flooding by Bob McMillan for FEMA)

Labels: climate, politics

There are reports of confusion and anger at FEMA trailer parks today over the agency's unclear policy on the parks' future.

Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported that a number of the parks would be closing today as part of the effort to move residents into permanent housing. But now the agency is saying that the parks will stay open as long as there are residents who have not found apartments or houses to rent, according to the Baton Rouge Advocate. That has upset some trailer residents like Celeste Jackson, who packed up her belongings yesterday despite not having anywhere to go.

FEMA officials said the agency passed out fliers two months ago notifying residents of the pending closing and encouraging them to contact their FEMA case workers. However, only some residents responded, according to a FEMA spokesperson.

The agency has said that it wants all the Katrina parks closed by the end of next May. But concerns remain about where the more than 6,000 households still living in those parks will go, given the dearth of affordable housing in New Orleans, where fair-market rents have risen 45 percent since the storm.

Meanwhile, the state's political leaders remain at an impasse over legislation that would boost the number of affordable housing units available for displaced people who want to return to New Orleans and other Gulf communities.

As we've reported here previously, the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act sponsored by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) had the support of the entire state's delegation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development -- until September, when HUD and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) suddenly withdrew their backing. Vitter has incorrectly accused the bill of attempting to re-create New Orleans' troubled public housing complexes exactly as they were before Hurricane Katrina, when in fact it allows those complexes to be torn down and replaced by either subsidized public housing, partially subsidized units, or vouchers to offset rent in privately owned housing.

There's been much speculation over Vitter's sudden about-face on the measure, especially since he's been reluctant to disclose his objections in much detail. A story about the controversy in the latest Congressional Quarterly Weekly offers partisan politics as one explanation for his actions:

...[P]olitical experts say the senatorial flap is not unexpected, given Louisiana's rough-and-tumble politics and Vitter and Landrieu's chilly relationship. Landrieu is up for re-election next year and has emerged as the GOP's top target among incumbent senators, in part because of the state's rightward shift in recent elections.

"The fact that Mary Landrieu is widely identified as the most vulnerable Democrat coming into the next election cycle, you certainly don't want to give her big victories in helping the state," said Kirby Goidel, a professor of political science at Louisiana State University. "He probably feels safe enough to hold it up as long as it's not too obviously political and he has some policy-related cover. He's a pretty hardball political player."

The story notes that political insiders have pretty much given up on any chance of Vitter's support, and the bill probably can't move without his approval. If the only victims of the senator's obstinacy were his low-income constituents, we could almost understand his cold political calculus. But what makes Vitter's position particularly puzzling is that he's also bucking business groups like the Chamber for Southwest Louisiana and Greater New Orleans Inc., who recognize that the region's reconstruction is imperiled by workers' inability to find affordable housing.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, housing, politics

More than 40 human rights organizations sent a letter last week to federal officials protesting the planned demolition of some 3,000 public housing units in New Orleans. The letter -- which went to U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson -- came less than a week after a federal judge refused to stop the Housing Authority of New Orleans from razing the city's four largest public housing developments. The tear-downs are set to begin as soon as next month.

The protesters charge that demolishing the complexes without replacement affordable housing stock violates international human rights standards protecting people displaced by disasters. They report that contractors have already begun emptying apartments and discarding residents' personal property -- including photographs, letters and Social Security cards -- without their knowledge or consent. Bill Quigley, a Loyola University law professor and attorney for some former public housing residents, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that he plans to appeal the judge's ruling.

The advocates' letter is part of a national campaign to press for passage of the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act, sponsored by Rep. Waters and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). Though Vitter and HUD officials were initially supportive of the legislation, which passed the House earlier this year by a vote of 302 to 125, they have since come out against the bill over a provision that requires the replacement of any affordable units that are torn down.

Also as part of that campaign, leaders of more than two dozen political action, faith-based and human rights organizations marched to Vitter's office in Metairie, La. last week to deliver more than 130,000 petition signatures calling on him to drop his objections to the housing bill, which has also been endorsed by the New Orleans City Council, Mayor Ray Nagin and more than 100 business groups, non-profits and religious organizations.

Further complicating the politics surrounding affordable housing in New Orleans is the ongoing FBI probe of HUD chief Jackson over revelations that Jackson's friend and golfing partner -- South Carolina-based construction contractor William Hairston -- got $485,000 worth of no-bid work at the Housing Authority of New Orleans in 2006 with Jackson's help. HANO is currently under HUD receivership. The probe is reportedly focusing on whether Jackson lied when he told a Senate panel in May that he never intervened in awarding department contracts.

Hairston and his wife, Starletta, together have donated at least $3,500 to Republican politicians and party committees exclusively since 2005, after previously supporting Rep. James Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's about the same time the Hairstons' annual income plunged from $500,000 to $70,000 after the undocumented immigrants William Hairston previously hired for his stucco business started their own companies and began undercutting their former boss with lower bids, the Wall Street Journal reported last December:

To stay afloat, the Hairstons remortgaged their house twice and sold a condominium and a plot of land. Mr. Hairston now hustles for jobs in Charlotte, N.C., and beyond, looking for better opportunities. Meanwhile, Starletta Hairston, 53, won election to the Beaufort County Council, where she has joined a wave of local officials around the country trying to pass new laws cracking down on illegal immigrants.

The FBI's probe of Jackson comes on the heels of an April 2006 incident in which the HUD secretary was speaking before a group of minority real estate executives and discussed quashing a contract award because the contractor had spoken unfavorably of President Bush. A subsequent investigation by the HUD inspector general found that while Jackson ordered aides to consider the partisan political views of contractors in awarding department business, there was no evidence they complied. Awarding contracts on the basis of party affiliation violates federal law.

In another development that raises questions about HUD's and HANO's commitment to helping New Orleans' low-income residents with affordable housing, the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center recently filed a motion to enforce a consent degree and for contempt sanctions against the housing authority. The motion comes in response to HANO's failure to provide updated contact information for former residents of the St. Thomas Public Housing Development, which was shuttered in 2001 and later torn down. St. Thomas residents were supposed to be given preference for units at the replacement River Garden mixed-income development. HANO initially updated the mailing information for only 378 names out of a total of 1,132 -- even though HANO has access to HUD and FEMA databases of displaced people receiving housing assistance. Said GNOFHAC Executive Director James Perry:

"HANO's duty and purpose is to provide housing for indigent New Orleanians. The failure by HANO to provide updated contact information for these residents is a clear abdication of that duty, as well as its obligations under the Consent Decree. HANO's failure is of grave concern because it calls into question HANO's claim that it has open units at other developments and that it is unable to fill these units with HANO clients. The failure also frustrates New Orleans' attempt to conduct an equitable and open rebuilding process inclusive of all New Orleanians.

(Photo by Craig Morse courtesy of Survivors' Village Web site.)

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, housing, politics

Last week we brought you news of the excellent database launched by the Center for Global Development showing carbon dioxide emissions from the world's power plants. Now a British newspaper has used that database as a starting point to illustrate the close ties between a major greenhouse gas polluter and the Bush administration, which has been reluctant to take strong steps to curb global warming pollution -- and has even tried to deny the reality of the problem despite the scientific consensus that the threat is real and demands immediate action.

The CARMA database shows that the top carbon dioxide-polluting company in the United States -- and the sixth-worst in the world -- is the Atlanta-based Southern Co., which serves more than 4 million people throughout the Southeast. One Southern Co. coal-fired plant in Juliette, Ga. releases more carbon dioxide each year than Brazil's entire power sector, according to CARMA. Not surprisingly, the company does not support mandatory caps or taxes on carbon emissions, which it claims are likely to slow economic growth.

A story in today's Independent UK points out that Southern in turn is one of the largest financiers of the Republican Party, whose leadership has also resisted carbon caps and taxes. Reports the Independent:

Southern's employees handed George Bush $217,047 to help him get elected twice, and they and the company have contributed an extraordinary $6.2m to Republican campaigns since 1990 according to the Centre for Responsive Politics.

The Independent also notes that one of the main lobbyists for the Southern Co. when Bush took office was none other than Haley Barbour, former chair of the Republican Party and the recently re-elected governor of Mississippi. Barbour "played a crucial role in persuading [Bush] to back away from his original campaign promise to reduce CO2 emissions when he first ran for president in 2000," the paper reports.

On Friday, the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth report, which summarizes the global warming problem for policy makers. Citing concerns over species extinction and the growing risk of extreme weather events, it argues strongly in favor of taking immediate action to mitigate and adapt to a climate that's already changing.

And in a rebuke to Southern Co. and others who argue against taking action on economic grounds, the IPCC summary says that combating greenhouse gas pollution would not lead to economic ruin. "There is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades," the report says -- if governments adopt the right policies and incentives now.

Labels: campaign finance, climate, energy policy, politics

In my story about the fossil fuel-funded attack on the Center for Climate Strategies, I incorrectly reported that the group "embraced" gas taxes. In fact, the Center does not "embrace" any policy solutions to climate change; gas taxes are merely one of the options the group catalogues for policymakers' consideration. I regret the error.

Labels: climate, energy policy, politics

The story I wrote about the fossil-fueled attack against the Center for Climate Strategies by the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation has apparently touched a nerve with Locke's Executive Director John Hood, judging by his defensive comments over at Greensboro, N.C.-based blogger Ed Cone's site.

Hood calls my story a "rehash" of a piece I wrote two years ago for the Durham, N.C.-based Independent Weekly. Actually, the earlier story I wrote -- "Turning the warming tide" -- focused on the effect climate change was expected to have on North Carolina if no effort were made to rein in human contributions to the problem. But it did examine the work of the John Locke Foundation as the most outspoken opponent of attempts to address greenhouse gas pollution in the state.

Since that earlier story was published, Hood has repeatedly misrepresented a question I asked him during our interview. He's done that again on Cone's blog.

I'd like to set the record straight.

While reporting the Independent story, I met with Hood to discuss his organization's scientifically unconventional ideas on climate change as well as its funding sources. On the latter topic, I asked him to let me look at his group's 990 Schedule Bs -- tax forms that disclose funding sources. As a nonprofit, the organization is legally obligated to share that information. But Hood refused, telling me, "We don't ever give that out. That's just not something we ever do." (He later blamed his gaffe on bad legal advice.)

I then asked him if his organization accepted money from outfits with ties to fossil-fuel interests. Hood disputes that, insisting I asked only if his group got money from oil interests. As he wrote on Cone's blog:

In that case, she asked me a question about funding from oil companies, I answered it, then she retroactively rewrote the question and reported that I had evaded it.

What Hood apparently did not count on in that interview was that I already had copies of his organization's tax forms showing it had taken money from Big Coal as well as Big Oil. Obviously I wasn't interested only in his organization's oil funding but in its funding from all interests with a financial stake in scuttling carbon regulations. I formulated my question accordingly.

But even if I had asked Hood only about his oil industry funding, he still prevaricated in telling me that he did not accept money from such interests. In fact, his organization has received a significant amount of money over the years from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundations, one of the Koch family funds operated by David and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the nation's largest privately held oil conglomerate.

So now Hood accuses me of "construct[ing] an elaborate conspiracy theory" by connecting the Kochs' financial interests with their charitable giving. But is it really an "elaborate conspiracy theory" to note that the Kochs' charity has founded and supported groups that have helped boost Koch wealth by denying the reality of climate change and fighting efforts to address it?

The fact is, there has been a concerted, corporate-funded effort to deny global warming and to fight efforts to regulate greenhouse pollution, as Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others have documented. And the John Locke Foundation and its allies in the attack on the Center for Climate Strategies have been part of that effort.

What especially concerns me is Locke's effort to thwart full disclosure, as evidenced by its past refusal to hand over its tax paperwork, its unwillingness to list institutional funders on its Web site (unlike we at the Institute for Southern Studies do, and its failure to reveal its own funding in its coverage of the Center for Climate Strategies while at the same time attacking that group for its own money sources. Then we have the effort by Locke and the Heartland Institute to hide their role behind the Climate Strategies Watch Web site by registering the site anonymously, initially leaving out any sponsorship information, and announcing the site on the Locke blog without disclosing the group's own role in creating it. That's no way to have an honest discussion about an important public policy issue.

In his post at Cone's site, Hood raises a point he also made in my Independent story: that funding of the organizations participating in the public debate over climate change policy should not matter because we ought to be evaluating ideas on the basis of their validity, not who's bringing them to the table. Unfortunately, that idealistic vision of a public policy debate where all voices are listened to equally does not describe the reality of the state policy-making process, where money amplifies some voices above others. Given that reality, full disclosure of players' financial interests is crucial.

It made me chuckle when Hood accused me of engaging in "anti-Christian bigotry" for mentioning his editor's attack on the Evangelical Climate Initiative. My straight reporting of his editor's mean-spirited, name-calling rhetorical assault on a Christian group concerned about global warming is "anti-Christian bigotry"? That's rich.

In closing, I'd like to correct another error of fact in Hood's comments. He wrongly stated that the Institute for Southern Studies is associated with "IPS in Washington," by which I assume he means the nonprofit Institute for Policy Studies. While it's true that some ISS board members were involved with IPS in the early 1970s, there has been no connection between the organizations since then.

That said, I must disagree with Hood's characterization of IPS as "odious" -- especially given the group's work documenting the social and environmental consequences of public lending for fossil-fuel projects. However, I can understand why a mouthpiece for the interests of Big Oil and Big Coal wouldn't appreciate that sort of thing.

Labels: climate, energy policy, politics

HOSTILE CLIMATE

The Center for Climate Strategies wants to help states cut global warming pollution. A North Carolina think tank funded by energy interests wants to stop them.

By Sue Sturgis

Given Washington's reluctance to tackle global warming, many states have recently taken the initiative, drawing up their own plans to cut carbon emissions. For help, 25 states have turned to the Center for Climate Strategies, a nonprofit group of scientists, engineers, business strategists and policy experts who guide states in figuring out how to best reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

But in recent months, the Center has become the target of concerted attacks by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative North Carolina-based think tank that opposes strict environmental regulations. A longtime skeptic of prevailing climate science, which it criticizes as "alarmist," Locke has published a series of scathing attacks directed at the Center in its own publications and other outlets including the American Spectator, Washington Times, Washington Examiner and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Why the hostility? Among Locke's criticisms is that the Center for Climate Strategies was founded by an "environmental advocacy group." In fact, it was created by a business-friendly organization, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, whose current directors include representatives from leading energy companies like PPL Corp., Inter-Power, Exelon and Reliant.

Locke also criticizes the Center for taking money from foundations that it accuses of being "on the global warming panic train," among them the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation and the Heinz Endowments.*

But Locke's diatribes against the Center fail to disclose the potential bias in its own funding sources. According to an Institute for Southern Studies analysis of the group's tax returns, the John Locke Foundation received at least $126,500 from outfits with ties to the fossil-fuel industry between fiscal 2002 and 2005.

Looming large behind a number of Locke's funders is ExxonMobil. Since 1998, the oil giant has funneled more than $16 million to several dozen advocacy organizations in an effort that a recent Union of Concerned Scientists report described as seeking "to deceive the public about the reality of global warming" by "using seemingly independent front organizations to publicly further its desired message."

Among the fossil-fuel-tainted contributions the Locke Foundation has received:

* $70,000 from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, one of the Koch Family Foundations operated by billionaires David and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately owned oil company in the United States.

* $20,000 from the Cato Institute, an anti-regulatory think tank that was co-founded by Charles Koch. Cato has received at least $110,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org, a Web site sponsored by Greenpeace USA. ExxonSecrets.org also reports that Cato has received funds from such other fossil-fuel interests as the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Shell Oil.

* $15,000 from the Reason Foundation, an anti-regulatory think thank that's received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Reason has also received funds from the American Petroleum Institute, BP Amoco and Koch Industries.

* $10,000 from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, an anti-regulatory think tank that's received $780,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Charles Koch is also a major funder.

* $6,500 from the Center for Energy and Economic Development, a Texas-based nonprofit dedicated to protecting the viability of coal-based electricity.

* $5,000 from the DCI Group, a Republican lobbying firm that has received $140,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org.

The John Locke Foundation's biggest funder is James Arthur "Art" Pope, who founded the organization and has given it more than $8 million since 2002. A former Republican N.C. state representative, Pope has served on the boards of the Exxon-funded Atlas Economic Research Foundation, as well as Citizens for a Sound Economy, another Koch-founded group that's also taken more than $380,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Aside from being a prominent politico -- his hometown paper has dubbed him "the knight of the right" -- Pope is president and CFO of Variety Wholesalers, a company operating more than 500 discount retail stores in 14 states. Though not an energy firm, Variety does have an economic interest in avoiding gas taxes -- a proposal embraced catalogued* by the Center -- since its profits depend on importing and distributing foreign-made goods as cheaply as possible.


The John Locke Foundation stepped up its crusade against the Center for Climate Strategies this September, when it teamed up with the Heartland Institute to host a conference call promising to expose the Center’s "hijacking of climate policy."

The Heartland Institute was a natural ally: The Chicago-based think tank has long fought any attempts to curtail global warming pollutants. Heartland has also taken at least $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org, and the Union of Concerned Scientists found that nearly 40 percent of the funds the institute got from the oil giant were earmarked for fighting climate change regulations. In addition, Walter Buchholtz, who's listed as Heartland's government relations advisor on the group's 2005 tax return (PDF), has also served as ExxonMobil’s senior environmental advisor.

The featured speaker for the Sept. 12 conference call -- which drew state legislators, policy analysts, and a lobbyist for Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal company -- was Michael Sanera, Locke's research director. Sanera is also a member of an advisory board for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and a former analyst at the Heritage Foundation -- both funded by ExxonMobil.

Sanera led the attendees through a Power Point attack, accusing the Center for Climate Strategies of, among other things, peddling false assumptions such as the idea that "CO2 emission reduction is the solution to global warming." It offered participants a list of suggestions on how to counteract the Center that included "Discredit CCS's Sponsoring Organization (State environmental bureaucracy)," "Demand scientific peer review process," and "Demand cost-benefit analysis by academic economists."

The assault on the Center continued on Oct. 5, when Locke's blog announced the launch of Climate Strategies Watch, "a new watchdog Web site that scrutinizes and keeps up with new developments of the Center for Climate Strategies."

Details were scarce: The post did not say who was behind the site, the site itself had no sponsor details, and the domain was anonymously registered. Weeks later, sponsorship information was added to the site, identifying it as a "joint project of The Heartland Institute and John Locke Foundation." The site's front page warns of the Center's funding by "wealthy liberals" and features the image of a man peering through a magnifying glass at cockroaches emblazoned with the names "Rockefeller," "Heinz" and "Turner."

Then on Oct. 17, Locke released what it called a "peer review assessment" by the Boston-based Beacon Hill Institute -- who had a representative on the September call -- claiming the Center used "seriously flawed" methods in crafting climate proposals because it did not account for the costs of regulating greenhouse emissions. Beacon Hill's assessment, however, didn't consider the costs of not regulating greenhouse gases. Nor did it disclose that among Beacon Hill's clients are the CSE Foundation, DCI Group, Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, Pacific Research Institute and Texas Public Policy Foundation -- which together have received at least $1,780,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

A week after Beacon Hill's report was released, N.C. Sen. Robert Pittenger (R-Charlotte) -- a member of the N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change -- co-hosted with Locke a press conference spotlighting the study. Following the suggestion made during the Sept. 12 call to discredit the "environmental bureaucracy," Pittenger began by complaining that the commission didn't have enough hard science because it had heard from only two climatologists, Dr. Robert Balling and Dr. Pat Michaels.

As it so happens, though, both are prominent skeptics of prevailing climate science who've taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil, coal and other fossil-fuel interests (for details, see here and here). Michaels -- a scholar with the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute and Cato Institute and an outspoken participant in the Sept. 12 conference call -- recently left his job with Virginia's state climatology office amid criticism that his industry funding and controversial views left the office too politicized. Still not satisfied, Pittenger said he petitioned the commission's chairs to invite two more prominent climate-science contrarians -- Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Richard Lindzen.

"We've got a bunch of liberal greenies who have just enough information to be dangerous," Pittenger declared at the event. Certainly no "greenie" himself, Pittenger has received $13,300 in political contributions from electric utilities and $5,200 from automotive interests in the last three election cycles, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. A real-estate investor, he's also taken more than $45,000 in contributions from his colleagues in the real-estate industry, many of whom dislike the smart-growth development policies the Center promotes.


So what does the John Locke Foundation feel should be done about climate change? Most of their work simply denies there's a serious problem. But they do offer a glimpse of what they think we should be worrying about instead in a February 2006 American Spectator opinion piece titled "Bible Bending Propaganda" by Paul Chesser, Locke's associate editor and a leading critic of the Center's work.

In the piece, Chesser goes after the Evangelical Climate Initiative, a Christian group favoring strong action to reduce global warming pollution. He blasts the Initiative for claiming Christ "for their own alarmist agenda" and its members for suffering from "Biblical illiteracy" and for being "Birkenstocked" "enviro-hippies."

But instead of calls for hard science, the Locke Foundation editor veers from the skeptics' usual playbook and quotes not a dissenting climatologist, bu