In contrast to the idiocy offered by State Rep. Jim Gooch (D), see for yourself some of the leadership being offered by governors of other states -- from both parties.
And be mindful that Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) leads a state that is second to none when it comes to coal reserves (it has four times Kentucky's reserves) yet he's embracing the need for addressing global warming pollution now.
Who do you believe?
A reader passed along a little tidbit relating to our on-going discussion on the recent anti-science efforts by State Rep. Jim Gooch (D) that seemed worth posting:
Hey Mark,
Last February I was doing some citizen lobbying in Frankfort. I was a walking down a hall when I saw Rep. Gooch surrounded by a group of reporters. I listened in as they were confronting Gooch about his business ties to the coal industry and asking him about potential conflicts of interest. Gooch clearly looked taken aback by all the attention and pointed questions. Of course he denied it but then he made a not so veiled threat against those who would level such accusations (conflict of interest) against him, saying that people needed to watch what they say or there could be serious repercussions. A few reporters asked him what he meant and he responded "I think you know what I mean."
I didn't really know much about Gooch until that point and after listening in, I found out all I needed to know about who this character is.
I'm not sure if I'm more frightened by the views Gooch embraces or the arrogance which apparently accompanies them.
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth highlights how the shameful ignorance of State Rep. Jim Gooch (D) to chair a Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee hearing to dispute the growing consensus on global warming -- and only invite global warming deniers to testify -- has quickly made its way to the national stage.
Turns out he was invited as a guest on Good Morning America on Sunday to discuss this latest travesty of Kentucky political leadership:
By the way, despite this shameful display, the Herald-Leader notes that:
But, despite the grumbling of some rank-and-file lawmakers, Democrats said, they don't plan to remove Rep. Jim Gooch, D-Providence, as chairman of the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee, where he has defended the coal industry and stopped environmental reforms for years.
Why the hell not?
To allow this man to continue to have a bully-pulpit and mock science and obstruct efforts to pass mine safety legislation in order to protect his coal company interests is an offense to every Kentuckian, and is a microcosm of what is wrong with our political system. Democrats should be demanding that Speaker Richards (D) remove Gooch from this post, and not settle for anything less.
Hypothetically, imagine if Gooch was chair of the education committee and held a hearing to promote a view that black students were genetically inferior to whites (and refused to allow an opposing view to testify at the hearing). Would we allow him to continue as chair? Of course not.
Imagine if he chaired a health-related committee and held a hearing on a hypothetical view that HIV does not cause AIDS (like a few loons still believe). Would we let him keep his powerful post? Hell no.
So, why is his current mockery of committee work being tolerated? This is a complete farce, another example of the joke of the Kentucky General Assembly, and yet another national chuckle at Kentucky's expense. Simply amazing. Can we please find a primary challenger in Gooch's district?
Meanwhile, The New York Times recently published a story on the joining of forces by both Republican and Democratic governors across the country to create regional pacts on climate change. The story focused on the efforts of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R), and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D).
The interim joint Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to dispute the idea that the Earth is warming, at least in part because of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere produced by industrial activity.
Chairman Jim Gooch, D-Providence, a longtime ally of the coal industry, said he purposefully did not invite anyone who believes in global warming to testify.
"You can only hear that the sky is falling so many times," said Gooch, whose post makes him the House Democrats' chief environmental strategist. "We hear it every day from the news media, from the colleges, from Hollywood."
Neither of Gooch's invited panelists was a scientist.
I'm ashamed and disgusted that Gooch has a "D" after his name. What next, embrace teaching creationism in our public school science classes? Recall that Gooch also threw-up roadblocks last year when it came to mine safety legislation.
Gooch represents the type of Democrats that deserve a primary election.
Meanwhile, prominent national Democrats and Republicans are working together on the issue:
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and former vice president Al Gore "are planning a bipartisan presidential forum on energy and climate change in New Hampshire in December," USA Today reports.
FYI -- Jim.Gooch@lrc.ky.gov
In case you didn't hear, former Vice President Al Gore (D) was named co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. He'll share the award with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
How long before the wingnuts attack the Nobel committee as just a pack of Bush-hating liberals?
The New York Times story discusses the obvious question on everyone's mind:
Two Gore advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to share his thinking, said the award will not make it any more likely that he will seek the presidency in 2008.
If anything, the Peace Prize makes the rough-and-tumble of a presidential race less appealing to Gore, they said, because now he has a huge, international platform to fight global warming and may not want to do anything to diminish it.
One of the advisers said that while Gore is unlikely to rule out a bid in the coming days, the prospects of the former vice president entering the fray in 2008 are ''extremely remote.''
On Friday, the Nobel peace prize will be awarded in Oslo, Norway. Former Vice President Al Gore (D) has been formally nominated and this morning's Financial Times (London) seems to believe he's favored to win the award. Go Al.
(Hat tip: Political Wire)
At yesterday's gubernatorial forum, Governor Fletcher (R) and Steve Beshear (D) got into an exchange on global warming. Beshear was adamant that it existed and human activity was the cause, Fletcher was not.
Here's what Fletcher said:
AP: On another topic, Beshear said that global warming is a reality, but promised to push for more coal production along with new technology to burn the Kentucky-rich resource more cleanly. Fletcher sidestepped a question asking whether he acknowledges that global warming is occurring.
Herald-Leader: If election, Beshear said Kentucky will "have a governor that understands global warming is a reality."
Afterward, Fletcher declined to say whether he believes scientific evidence supports the theory of global warming. "We'll let the scientists take care of that and debate that," he said.
Courier-Journal: Beshear said he believes global warming is real and a problem that needs to be dealt with.
In an interview later, Fletcher refused to say if he believes "global warming exists."
I raise this not to criticize Mr. Intelligent Design (aka Fletcher) for not embracing the science.
I do so because less than a year ago I actually praised Fletcher (a rare BGR event) for being in agreement on the issue of man-made global warming during his interview with the Courier-Journal (click here for the post):
1) Do you believe the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is rising?
Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R): While some may disagree, most scientists believe the Earth's atmosphere is getting warmer and point to human activity as the primary cause.
2) To what extent to you believe human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, is contributing to any warming?
Fletcher: Kentucky's first comprehensive energy strategy noted that energy production and usage affect the environment. Energy generation ... contributes to emissions of carbon dioxide, which is the leading source of greenhouse gases. Emissions are also created by driving.
Why did Fletcher retreat from his clear position of last November? Is he so beholden to the lunatic fringe of his party that he had to retreat from his reasonable position of last year? Or is he so clueless that what he says in the past has little bearing on what he might say tomorrow?
Another excellent ad from the Bluegrass Freedom Fund on Governor Fletcher's (R) ethics. These are terrific, fact-driven ads and not the over-the-top attacks that the public has come to loathe during an election season (and from which we're seeing from the Republican Governors Association).
UPDATE (10:29 AM): Click here if you'd like to see the formal back-up documentation for this ad.
Peter Smith, the religion writer for the Courier-Journal, has this not-very-surprising piece on recent polling done of the various religious groups in the United States as far as their attitudes towards the environment. It showed that evangelical Christians are the group least likely to believe that global warming is a "major problem" (they also don't recycle very well, compared to other groups).
So much for the whole notion of protecting and caring for God's creation -- our planet.
Evangelical Christians are the least worried about global warming than other religious groups surveyed, and agnostics and atheists are the most worried.
And evangelicals are least likely to recycle.
That's according to a new report by The Barna Group, which surveys trends among evangelicals -- which it defines as a more doctrinally conservative band among those who define themselves as born-again Christians.
Only 33 percent thought global warming was a major problem, compared with 69 percent in the latter category. Other Christian and non-Christian groups were also more concerned about global warming.
[..]
Here are comments from David Kinnaman, the president of The Barna Group:
"The survey confirms that Americans disagree about climate change. Each faith audience interacts with the concept of global warming in distinct ways. Evangelicals would rather think about other things. Non-evangelicals say the environment is important to them, yet they are far from convinced that global warming is as important as everyone says. By contrast, many non-Christians view global climate alterations as the central element of their environmental engagement."
Here's the breakdown:
By the way, for the first time in mankind's recorded history, the rapid melting of Arctic ice is almost at the point that a shipping channel through the Northwest Passage is soon to be a reality.
But that's just a normal fluctuation, isn't it? I mean, that's what the wing-nuts continue to tell us.
Petty politics, showing its face once again?
McConnell, who leads the Republicans in the U.S. Senate, has blocked at least for now one of Al Gore's global warming concerts planned for the Capitol lawn.
...Watchdog Earth called Mr. McConnell's press office this morning to find out what's going on. Spokeswoman Julie Adams said the senator wanted the authorizing resolution to first go before the Rules Committee, which is where it is now. It's still not clear, however, whether the senator from Louisville is trying to get the concert moved to a less political setting.
Hopefully, this will get get louder and louder. I sure would love to see it:
Former Vice President Al Gore's triumph at the Oscars is already stoking activists’ pleas for him to make a dramatic late entry into the fractious presidential race, and some key strategists insist he could announce as late as September or October and still win the nomination.
“Honestly, this was the inaugural parade we all envisioned,” said Donna Brazile, his former campaign manager. “Gore's political stock is hot right now. I don’t know if I would cash in now with so many players still on stage. There’s no reason to force him to declare tomorrow. ”
[...]
“He could come in at the end of the day as a candidate who can truly unite his party as well as his country,” Brazile said. “He can help repair our country’s image abroad. He’s someone who can go toe-to-toe with world leaders and doesn’t need a crash course in diplomacy.” She remembers back in the ’80s when Gore was in Congress and used to often cite a quote from Gandhi, ““Be the change you want to see in the world.” Brazile said: “I believe he has become that quote.”
And we're going to see more of Gore in the coming months:
The former vice president will be in the spotlight again with three major events in the next five months:
--On March 21, he’ll star at global-warming hearings in both the House and Senate, testifying before a committee he once served on. He will be the sole witness before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. On the House side, he will testify at a Joint Subcommittee Hearing on Climate Change, held by the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, and the Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
--A new book by Gore, "The Assault on Reason: How the Politics of Fear, Secrecy, and Blind Faith Subvert Wise Decision Making, Degrade Our Democracy, and Put Our Country and Our World in Peril," is due out in May.
--On July 7 (7.7.07), he will be among the luminaries heading a 24-hour “Save Our Selves” (SOS) concert marathon across all seven continents. The “Live Earth” concert will bring together more than 100 of the world’s top musical acts and is designed to reach more than 2 billion people through attendance and broadcasts.
And don't forget that Gore has been formally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (which is usually announced in October) and he has to be considered a strong contender. Imagine that:
"[Gore] has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize by Norwegian lawmakers who seek to recognize the former American vice president's wide-reaching efforts to alert the world to the dangers of global warming. "A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," explains Boerge Brende, a conservative former minister of environment and then of trade who joined with Heidi Soerensen, a prominent leftist, to nominate Gore.
Sadly, the guy who lost the presidency has done a much better job of leading the free world than the guy who won. Be it climate change, his passionate defense of the Bill of Rights more than a year ago at Constitutional Hall, his opposition to the war in Iraq, and his speaking out against torture, Gore has led. He's not let polls and focus groups dictate what he said or when he said it. I hope the calls for him to run in 2008 get louder and that Gore heeds those pleas.
Posts will be a little sparse for a few hours as I'm preparing for something that I will look forward to writing about later today and tomorrow.
Last week, I was invited to be part of a group of about 8 bloggers to join a conference call this afternoon with Kenneth Cohen, Vice President of Public Affairs for ExxonMobil, to discuss the topic of climate change.
As I noted this weekend, the company seems to be coming around on this issue and they've been doing a series of meetings with economists, law professors, and environmentalists over the past few weeks (there was a Saturday column in the New York Times business section on its conference call that is worth reading). Today, they move to the blogosphere.
Though a skeptic, I'm encouraged by the company's effort and am trying to approach the call with as much of an open mind as possible and am looking forward to hearing where ExxonMobil intends to go with their evolving view on global warming and how that gets incorporated into its business model, corporate governance, and how such a mammoth company views the issue of environmental responsibility when their core business is, in fact, responsible for the environmental challenges we're facing today.
However, I do think the company deserves some credit to reaching out to critics generally and the blogosphere in particular.
So, I'm off for a while to read and prepare some questions for the 4pm call. However, I'd love any questions/thoughts you have as well, so please leave them as a comment to this post and I'll take a look before the call.
The Miller-Maze campaign rolled-out another substantive policy proposal this morning, this time on issues relating to energy, biotech and the environment :
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Miller, the state treasurer, this morning said the state needs to work with mining companies on better ways to extract coal from Eastern Kentucky without ruining the environment.
...He pointed to a House bill, sponsored by Rep. Don Pasley of Winchester, that would require earth that was moved to gain access to the coal be returned to its original place after the mining instead of being dumped into waterways.
Miller...also called for:
WKYT-TV (Lexington):
Miller says a lot of Kentuckians, not just those in eastern Kentucky are very concerned about mountaintop removal mining.
"We're hearing it from all over the state. We're hearing it from eastern Kentuckians. We're hearing it from Kentuckians all over the state, hearing it from fishermen, hikers, who want to come to eastern Kentucky for its beauty," Miller says.
Miller says he wants to see Kentucky as the clean energy capital of the world. He is proposing clean coal and bio-fuel technologies to harness energy from agricultural and natural resources.
What does it mean when Wal-Mart joins organized labor to agree that the time has come for universal health care in America and when ExxonMobil now agrees with the scientific consensus on the extent and causes of global warming?
Have two of the biggest titans of corporate America broken ranks with the wingnuts on two of the more important issues facing us?
Earlier this month, the Democratic-controlled House delivered on their promised 100-hour agenda with great fanfare and accolades.
During that time, the House enacted long-needed legislation to raise the minimum wage, expand funding for stem cell research, toughen lobbying rules, implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, pay-as-you-go spending rules, slash student loan interest by half, rolling back subsidies for Big Oil, and lower Medicare drug prices by allowing the government to negotiate prices.
This week, House and Senate committees are delivering on another big promise: substantive hearings on climate change and the Bush Administration's full-court press to stymie scientists and censor scientific reports that speak the truth on the issue:
At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media.
The survey and separate interviews with scientists "has brought to light numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered, suppressed and manipulated in the last five years," Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the committee.
Grifo's group, along with the Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers, produced the report.
Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased.
Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House.
Here's one hint as to what President Bush (R) will tell the nation this evening:
Bush will say that the fuel-use goal of slashing consumption by 20 percent by 2017 can be achieved primarily through a sharp escalation in the amount of ethanol and other alternative fuels the federal government mandates must be produced. The rest of the reduction is to come from raising fuel economy standards for passenger cars, Joel Kaplan, White House deputy chief of staff, told reporters in a briefing several hours ahead of before Bush's televised prime-time speech.
Amazing what a 28% job approval rating and a Democratic-controlled Congress will do to cause Bush to start focusing on things that matter to most Americans.
UPDATE (6:42 pm): You can read the 26 pages of White House talking points here.
This is a wonderful example of just how out-of-touch some of the wingnuts have become...turns out that oil companies such as Exxon and Shell, and a number of energy companies, are publicly recognizing the problem of global warming and are joining the debate. Exxon is even considering ceasing funding of a think tank which cast doubt on global warming.
This was front page in today's Washington Post:
Energy Firms Come To Terms With Climate Change
By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post
Saturday, November 25, 2006; A01
While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable.
The Democratic takeover of Congress makes it more likely that the federal government will attempt to regulate emissions. The companies have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help fashion a national approach that would avert a patchwork of state plans now in the works. They are also working to change some company practices in anticipation of the regulation.
"We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?"
Hofmeister and other top energy company leaders, such as Duke Energy Corp.'s chief executive, James E. Rogers, back a proposal that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and allow firms to trade their quotas.
Paul M. Anderson, Duke Energy's chairman and a member of the president's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, favors a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas. His firm is the nation's third-largest burner of coal.
Exxon Mobil Corp., the highest-profile corporate skeptic about global warming, said in September that it was considering ending its funding of a think tank that has sought to cast doubts on climate change. And on Nov. 2, the company announced that it will contribute more than $1.25 million to a European Union study on how to store carbon dioxide in natural gas fields in the Norwegian North Sea, Algeria and Germany.
What will the wingnuts and neocons say now that the oil companies are abandoning them on this issue? Seems that both the voters, as well as some of their core constituents (oil and gas companies), are moving away from them...
This was quite a surprise. Apparently, Governor Fletcher (R) shows a reasonable side on the issue of of climate change and global warming, believing not only that temperatures are rising but agrees that human activity is "the primary cause."
Who knew? Gotta give credit where credit is due.
This is from a Courier-Journal story from this weekend:
1) Do you believe the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is rising?
Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R): While some may disagree, most scientists believe the Earth's atmosphere is getting warmer and point to human activity as the primary cause.
2) To what extent to you believe human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, is contributing to any warming?
Fletcher: Kentucky's first comprehensive energy strategy noted that energy production and usage affect the environment. Energy generation ... contributes to emissions of carbon dioxide, which is the leading source of greenhouse gases. Emissions are also created by driving.
Sadly, this should only accelerate the Kentucky Republicans' efforts to rid Fletcher as their 2007 nominee for governor...
HOLY CRAP!
Could it be that the President Bush (R) is really going to give in on this crucial matter and fly in the face of his own party that is stubbornly unwilling to notice the signs??? What a welcome turn-of-events this would be if true.
Bush 'Prepares Emissions U-Turn'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
The Independent (UK)
Published: 17 September 2006
President Bush is preparing an astonishing U-turn on global warming, senior Washington sources say.
After years of trying to sabotage agreements to tackle climate change he is drawing up plans to control emissions of carbon dioxide and rapidly boost the use of renewable energy sources.
[...]
Over the past few days rumours swept the capital that the "Toxic Texan" would announce his conversion this week, in an attempt to reduce the impact of a major speech tomorrow by Al Gore on solutions to climate change.
The White House denied the timing, but did not deny that a change of policy was on its way. Sources say that the most likely moment is the President's State of the Union address in January.
Hat tip to Daily Kos for this catch.
Well, they've had a year to prepare for this year's hurricane season. Let's hope the computer model below is wrong because today the head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said:
"despite aggressive efforts to repair the levee system in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, it was unclear whether the it could hold up to a sizable hurricane this year"
Keep your fingers crossed. It's been almost a year since this post and this follow-up.
Matt Stoller at MyDD caught this interesting nugget from yesterday's USA Today:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced an agreement Monday to bypass the Bush administration and work together to explore ways of fighting global warming.
They agreed to collaborate on research into cleaner-burning fuels and technologies, and look into the possibility of setting up a system whereby polluters could buy and sell the right to emit greenhouse gases. The idea is to use market forces and market incentives to curb pollution.
Stoller offers this observation:
This is part of a trend, where cities all over the country have indepentally signed the Kyoto Accord. What is going on? Well, Bush isn't just failing, the Presidency itself is failing. The executive branch has too much to do, and because of that, it's letting new leadership emerge in unexpected places. Governors are taking more power, but so are mayors, NGOs, and even bloggers.
Top-down centralized structures continue to crumble. Bush may hold on to his dictatorial ambitions, but the world is moving beyond him.
On a related but separate note, Al Gore made this succinct observation in a recent Rolling Stone interview:
"Right now we are borrowing huge amounts of money from China to buy huge amounts of oil from the most unstable region of the world, and to bring it here and burn it in ways that destroy the habitability of the planet. That is nuts! We have to change every aspect of that."
Bingo. Click here for the entire interview.
If you haven't yet seen Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, I urge you to do so.
Aside from it being well done and very entertaining, it's also very educational and incredibly well-received by a consensus of the scientific experts on the subject. Of course, there are still those who maintain a membership in the Flat-Earth Society that argue that nothing unusual is occurring to our global weather patterns:
But one of the main themes in the film is the increase of global temperature, which is tightly correlated with CO2 in the atmosphere:
"If you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured, they've all occurred in the last 14 years, and the hottest of all was 2005."
Well, it turns out that pattern is continuing and 2006 is on its way to breaking last year's record. Here's the AP story from this past weekend:
First Half Of 2006 Breaks U.S. Temperature Record
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The first half of the year was the warmest on record for the United States.
The government reported yesterday that the average temperature for the 48 contiguous United States from January through June was 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 3.4 degrees above average for the 20th century.
That made it the warmest such period since record keeping began in 1895, the National Climatic Data Center reported.
No state was cooler than average and five states -- Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri -- experienced record warmth for the period.
While much of the Northeast experienced extreme rainfall and flooding at the end of June, many other areas continued below normal rain and snowfall.
As of June, 45 percent of the contiguous United States was in moderate-to-extreme drought, an increase of 6 percent from May. Dry conditions spawned more than 50,000 wildfires, burning more than 3 million acres in the continental United States, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.
Worldwide, it was the sixth warmest year-to-date since record keeping began in 1880.
Happy global warming...
So, he's now the Environmental President? Check out this response by Bush in an interview this week.
Do you think Gore is right on global warming?
I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate. It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline.
Just noticed that the Courier-Journal editorial board today took the position that Court of Appeals Judge Williams McAnulty should follow Circuit Judge Ann Shake's lead, as urged by BluegrassReport.org, and refuse to put his name in consideration for an early temporary appointment by indicted Governor Fletcher (R) to the Supreme Court with just months away from the November election.
The retirement of Justice Martin Johnstone, who represents Louisville on the Kentucky Supreme Court, comes at a sensitive moment. After a vigorous primary, the two leading candidates to succeed him are at the beginning of what promises to be a lively campaign. Both are experienced, respected lawyers and jurists. Either would be an outstanding member of the court.
But the prospect that one of them might gain the advantage of incumbency -- through an appointment by Gov. Ernie Fletcher to fill out Justice Johnstone's final six months -- is disconcerting. The Governor should resist the pressure to select one of them.
[...]
Let the voters decide which one of them should be elevated, come November. In the meantime, there is a far more sensible way to ensure justice and representation for the Louisville district and avoid mucking around in this fall's campaign.
Gov. Fletcher should reach into the outstanding pool of retired judges, law professors and attorneys in our community and select someone to serve out the remainder of Justice Johnstone's term.
...There are others. Any of these would add to the court's luster and safeguard justice. We encourage the Governor to choose someone like them. And we urge Judge McAnulty to do what Judge Shake has done -- get out of the competition for the appointment.
Another big point here: McAnulty's promise of earlier this week that he would recuse himself from any cases involving the Fletcher administration if appointed to the Supreme Court by the governor has a fatal flaw.
Since we already know that Chief Justice Lambert and Justice Roach would also recuse -- as they've done already -- a McAnulty recusal would mean that Fletcher would have the right to appoint three temporary justices to the Supreme Court on any additional matters they are forced to act on that concern the current investigation. Since Fletcher has already tried to pack the Court with campaign contributions the last time around, is there any doubt he'd do the same but this time have three choices? Add those three votes to one already sympathetic judge -- like Graves -- and Fletcher is guaranteed a victory on all appeals.
So, McAnulty's idea is the worst possible outcome here. It's time for him to acknowledge this inherent conflict and agree not to submit his name for consideration. We can't control Fletcher's behavior, but we don't need to aid and abet the criminal.
A reader sent this to me a few days ago regarding Senator Dan Seum (R):
Today's Courier-Journal quotes Seum on the removal of site specific language for the proposed arena. 'The Senate action "will assure local control over local decisions," Sen. Dan Seum, R-Louisville, said on the Senate floor.'
I guess this means he now supports the Louisville air quality program (STAR), as that is a local decision. If he hasn't changed positions, it just confirms my belief that he is a liar.
...and a shameless, offensive hypocrite, I might add.
Ever seen a more clueless governor than Ernie Fletcher? Found the following excerpts from two of the smaller newspapers in the state. Maybe he was hoping he could slip them in without a whole lot of folks reading it...
From today's Central Kentucky News Journal:
Fletcher said he wants to change the image of Kentucky. He said his administration had turned a deficit around and reduced the cost of government by $142 million. By squeezing the most out of every tax dollar, he said Kentucky is operating much more efficiently and has helped avoid tax increases.
...Fletcher claims that 55,000 new jobs will be created over a 10-year period by giving people the freedom to choose if they want to join a union. He also claims that wages will actually increase.
From today's Hardin County News-Enterprise:
At the Lincoln Day dinner, Fletcher rallied Republicans by emphasizing his administration’s work to reduce waste and fraud, increase environmental controls and “changing the culture in Frankfort.”
Avoided tax increases?
Wages will rise with right-to-work?
Increased environmental controls?
Changing the culture in Frankfort?
What a fiction.
Fortunately, the Glasgow Daily Times gets it right and rips Fletcher over his idiotic idea of breaking a legal settlement with the tobacco companies and extort them for a new tax increase, suggesting:
"some think the governor is living in a dream world."
We sure do...
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.
This will be an unadulterated disaster without a doubt. The Fletcher Administration taking over federal responsibility for protecting our state's environment??? What next, Fletcher taking over responsibility for making sure state merit laws are adhered to, or making sure employers follow labor laws to protect workers?
What an unbelievable joke this will be.
State May Oversee Wetlands
EPA approval would be needed for change
By James Bruggers
jbruggers@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration is moving closer to taking over responsibility for protecting the state's rivers, streams and wetlands from development.
It likely will ask the General Assembly to earmark $1 million a year so the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet can do the work now handled by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The state is considering the move because the federal program involves too much red tape, said LaJuana S. Wilcher, secretary of the Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet.
She said she believes the state could make it easier for developers, farmers and mining companies to comply, while also ensuring better environmental protection.
[...]
He said the public and General Assembly need to understand that taking over wetlands regulation "would be a significant commitment" that does not come with federal funding.
Only two states have done so -- Michigan and New Jersey.
The report by the task force found that the EPA overturned permits granted by Michigan regulators seven times in 21 years. In New Jersey, that's happened once since 1993.
However, the EPA two years ago found major fault with the way Michigan ran its program, including a complaint that it wasn't protecting enough wetlands. The state agreed to take corrective action.
I received this following disturbing e-mail from a reader this morning that I believe warrants some serious follow-up. I wanted to share it with you. It may not be the sexiest topic, but given the environmental (and financial) implications, it is very serious.
There's a serious and unnoticed problem happening in Kentucky right now regarding underground storage tank remediation work. Most Kentuckians are unaware that a 1.4-cent tax on gasoline is collected monthly, and accumulates about $45 million annually in taxes for the purpose of cleaning up underground storage tank sites.
But the money is not being spent that way.
Fletcher diverted over $60 million last year out of this program for other purposes, and has practically bankrupted the cleanup Fund! As a result, remediation companies have had to lay off large portions of their staff, and many other companies doing this work have gone out of business completely, all because our government has decided to divert tax money away from its intended use. In fact, over $200 million has been diverted from this Fund. Quite a scam!
In the meantime, the property owners of these contaminated sites cannot sell their properties, or even list them with realtors for that matter, because at the same time, the regulatory agency governing the cleanups have become even more stringent in what they require. If you investigate, you will find that there are over 2,500 such contaminated sites in Kentucky, and the ratio of sites entering the cleanup program versus the ones that are being cleaned up is very lopsided toward those coming under regulators control versus those being deemed “clean." Si
Recent Comments