Speaking of "Whoa ... didn't see that coming"

I've said it before, I'll say it again -- there is no true conservative position on global warming.

Hand wringing contrarianism that it isn't happening isn't a conservative position. It's lunacy based on the fantasy that environmentalists want to control the gummint, and don't want people to be wealthy.

Anyone who's paid more than passing attention to global warming, and probably anyone who has, recognizes the following line of thinking -- if global warming is taking place, and if it is taking place because of things we do, then we will need to change the things we do that are driving global warming. So, if you don't want to change the things you do, then it is easier to pretend that global warming doesn't exist ... no matter the evidence to the contrary.

It sounds really, really silly, doesn't it? But, it's true. And, it isn't just people in the street who probably can be excused for not knowing better. It includes vast portions of our pundit class (some of them the same folks who got us into Iraq ... hmmm, does one sense a trend?).

A truly conservative approach to global warming would be to recommend that the market can solve the problem, that there are reasons to engage ideas like carbon trading and other things.

Those ideas have merit, and deserve consideration. If they can't pull it off, then it is time to talk about the opposite -- government regulation. Yes, a bugaboo word, but it's time we finally engaged the success we've had using regulation in the past to clean things up and keep them cleaned.

One the constant threats by contrarians is that addressing global warming will cost us jobs, right? Sure, even if someone were to build a carbon trading system that would create jobs in that market, it would cost us jobs. At least that's the argument.

What's never been addressed are the very real prospects of economic calamity over doing abso-fucking-lutely nothing. That is, until now.

The reasons for this are probably obvious, at least to people who more familiar with the science than politically-motivated rhetoric. Crop failures, submerged port facilities, higher death tolls associated to disease and insect infestation, etc...

We've linked to, several times, other pieces that say it's too late to act, that there will be a chain reaction of events that will superheat the planet. No need to relink to those things. They are easy enough to find. But, it's worth keeping in mind that if the center is usually correct, then the middle ground on global warming is addressing it ... the extreme positions on both sides is that there is no point in doing anything.

What took you so long?

I remember, about seven years ago, hiking near Lake Clinton in Kansas. Off in the distance, I saw a couple of large dogs loping across a pasture used for cattle. They looked like German shepherds, but were probably coyotes.

Those days, I used to disappear into the surroundings of the city of Lawrence, Kansas, to listen to the coyotes. If you've never heard one, it's a novel experience. Not the baleful howl of a wolf, it sounds more like a woman's scream. You were more likely to hear them, then, on crisp, cold, clear nights.

At the time, I worked in a London Fog outlet. One of the more popular of women's winter coats was a microfiber anorak-style coat with fur trim. The trim listed coyote, and my boss -- in what can only be described as a fit of rationalization -- said they were raised on coyote farms.

He should be forgiven his remarkable departure from the principles of the market. If you can get it for free, why spend money manufacturing it? There are plenty of coyotes ... everywhere. In fact, I used to go hiking and carry with me, dictated by tradition, a large turkey leg that I'd roast over the night's fire. The bone ... I'd toss it into the trees or into the grass just outside the limits of sight, and fall asleep sipping bourbon and listening to the coyotes scream. The next morning, the bone was always gone.

I make no bones about my affinity for such an elegant, adaptable animal. It might raid livestock (as a sign along M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Big Rapids reminded us about five years ago), and it might occasionally attack children. But, it is a cunning beast, and usually smarter than its chief hunter -- us.

These days, you can find them anywhere in the Lower 48, including New York City. I suppose there's no point in picking on this guy, or the reporter who wrote about him. It's not abnormal to be so oblivious to changes in the natural world that a trend more than 10 years old suddenly rates a story. The truth is that Mr. Cox has probably been surrounded by coyotes for 15 years, and it's just now that he's noticing. That's typical of practically everyone ... when you mention that coyotes are now found almost everywhere, it never fails to raise an eyebrow or an expression of wonderment.

Locally, the same applied about a year ago when the city decided to remove some deer pens from a local park. The park had been home, for about a decade, to a black bear called Smokey. The bear was poorly cared for. It typically ate donuts, and was confined to a round cage with a couple of logs and a bowling pin. It mostly just lay in the middle, a great black lump of fur and when it died it's final thought was probably the ursine equivalent to, "Thank God."

The city, these days, is in a financial pinch, and decided that taking care of the deer was an unnecessary expense. As can be expected, a large number of folks popped up to protest. "How awful. Our children delight in the deer." was the universal sentiment.

It's as odd as it is ironic. The deer look nothing like their wild counterparts. Most stumble across hard-bitten grass and soil, with patches of fur missing. They're raised on farms, and wouldn't know how to cope in the wilds. The deer that the children delight in (actually, the kids prefer the big wooden playscape a couple hundred yards down the riverwalk) are a domesticated form of deer. And, if the kids wanted to see wild deer, they only need to go to the same park, but at dusk, because wild deer emerge from a nearby forest to graze among the trees.

If history weren't such an unpopular subject, most of the city's residents might know this. A couple of years ago, wild deer became such a nuisance that the city instituted a couple of intra-city bow hunts to thin them out.

But, yet, as with the coyotes, most people don't remember or recognize this. The detachment from the natural world is complete, and in that way news more than a decade old seems new and fresh when someone finally notices what's going on.

Update, 10:31 a.m.--How on earth could I forget this, the DNR's new Web page devoted to the cougar? A couple of years ago, state residents were alarmed to learn that there are actual wolverines living among us. Now, there is controversy about cougars. The real question is this -- why would we be surprised to learn that after 100 years of heavy human-animal interaction, that those animals left would adapt and learn how to live among us?

Why so mum on Wal-Mart?

If you go to the Wal-Mart in Lawrence, Kansas, you will find the city's most comprehensive recycling center. At least, that was the case when I lived there seven years ago.

The recycling center took literally everything. Brown glass, green glass, clear glass, even other colored glass. Cardboard, pizza boxes, even used motor oil.

My old boss at the time and I got into a discussion over it one day. He liked it, and hated Wal-Mart critics. Look at this wonderful recycling center, he said.

Turns out that when he took his recycling there, he'd go into the store -- which featured another one-of-a-kind, a big pro-environment center -- and buy the little day-to-day things. He'd do this as opposed to going across the street to Target.

It turned out to be something of a Tylenol moment for the chain. The store was greeted with nothing but hate when it announced plans to open a store in uber-liberal Lawrence. Its environmental policies, its hatred of unions, its affect on local businesses -- folks hurled all kinds of accusations at the company (some well deserved). So, the store said it would open a store, but also make it in some small way reflect the community's values. Hence, the recycling center.

Who knows how much of the stuff actually got recycled, and how much wound up in the landfill for lack of market (that's why it's nearly impossible to recycle certain colors of glass in Michigan).

Naturally, this kind of thing comes to mind when I read about the state's premier wingnut bloggers -- the Detroit News editorial writers -- praising the chain for offering cheap prescription drugs. George Bullard, who we last say flailing about blaming Bill Clinton for North Korean nukes, managed to whip himself into a froth yesterday, posting not once, but twice about it. And, then raises it again, in the News' political blog.

Well, it's certainly a nice thing they've done, lowered prescription drug prices for everyone. In fact, it's the kind of thing that might bring in a lot more customers, looking for cheaper prescription drugs.

What's even more surprising is that this kind of strategy apparently passed by the pro-business Detroit News. It's fairly common knowledge, at least to those of us with low-level retail experience (i.e. low-level management or retail clerks, making less than 10 bucks an hour), that stores regularly price certain merchandise below cost to bring in more customers ... kind of like if you were to build a recycling center to allay a community concerns, but oh by the way, while you're here, we've got every kind of toothpaste you can imagine.

It certainly worked on my old boss.

I won't criticize Wal-Mart for doing this. I don't think what they've done is bad by any stretch of the imagination. But, it's certainly their right, and I doubt they'd be doing it if they thought it would cost them money in the long run. For that reason, in answer to George Bullard and the other wingnuts who think this lets Wal-Mart off the hook, I'll have to praise them for a fine business decision, but hold off on giving them humanitarian props.

While we're at it, Bullard -- if you follow the various threads (I've skipped a couple, because George Bullard's thoughts aren' really so compelling I'd chase them down all over cyberspace) -- you'll find more criticisms that Democrats have nothing but complaints, and no plans. When it comes to prescription drugs, I think you'll find there is a general drift among Democrats, which will be increasingly supported by business, towards universal health care. On the other hand, the solution forwarded by Dick DeVos, the News' endorsed gubernatorial candidate, for the health care crisis is this -- "get a job."

More on The War

Sometimes when you go away, nothing happens. Sometimes you miss a significant milestone.

The War anymore only rarely penetrates consciousness. It is always there, in the back of my mind, a festering tumor of lies, arrogance, and failure. But aggressive outrage is a difficult thing to maintain. Mostly, it just festers until brought to the forefront by something big.

One hundred Michiganders dead in Iraq. It's a number that required the recent uptick in American casualties to reach. While on the road, I'd check in on the news and it was grim. I'd open up Google News and each day seemed to bring word that five, six, or 10 American soldiders or Marines were killed overseas. Suddenly, I was aware again of the tumor.

For some, the war is inescapable. I don't envy them, and I certainly don't envy a man suddenly forced by reality to abandon certain things they've held dear all their lives, and throw in with the enemy because he's less dangerous than the folks you thought were your friends.

There was something career military enlisted guys used to tell me when I was a young sailor. While in uniform, you were a Republican. Once you retired or left the military, you became a Democrat. Except, maybe, the officers, who could expect nice, cushy jobs as Pentagon consultants. Very few of them leave the reservation. Until driven there, disillusioned, by Messrs. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

One has to wonder if this will have lasting impact. It's a given that the military is a bastion of conservative politics. The military doesn't make you like that, it ought to be noted, but simply amplifies certain pre-held notions about the world (a personal note: In the Operations Department of the USS Wasp during the '96 election, Bill Clinton won re-election by a wide margin). This drives a stake in the idea that supporting the troops demands supporting policy unquestioned. It also exposes those little yellow magnets as nothing more than flag decals of a different day.

Off road

Well, that was exciting, wasn't it?

Eight days on the road are finished -- finished late last night, matter of fact, and just in time to see the Tigers go down in Game Three. But, we won't dwell on the Tigers too long. I haven't cheered them all season, and I'm not about to become a bandwagon jumper (it irritated me mightily last year during the Super Bowl).

While gone, I missed not only baseball, but game three of the gubernatorial debates. Who won? Who knows. My gut tells me that Granholm did, but the state's daily rags are reluctant to draw any conclusions on the front page.

On the road, pt. 2

Been a powerfully busy eight days. Lots of time on the road, only a little time to stay caught up. Wait a couple of days, and I promise new content.

Right now, if you live in Michigan, break out the wool blankets. Looks like winter's coming early.

Date rape

One of the most important points of Dave Dempsey's biography of Bill Milliken is that the opposite of extreme conservative politics is moderation, not extreme liberal politics. In moderation will you find a necessary bipartisanship for wise leadership. In case you're unclear, here's an excerpt from Dave's book.

In many ways, Milliken was the Joe Lieberman of his day. A moderate in his party, hated by the extremes (Lieberman, some might argue, for good reason), but embraced by the other side. It's telling that today, Milliken is persona non grata is Republican circles, while our current Gov. Jennifer Granholm said she respected him and wanted to mold her administration in his fashion. Unsurprisingly, Milliken endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004.

At the time, the current spokeman for the current Republican candidate for governor thanked Milliken for his years of service, but told the old guy to stop fussing about and go back to bed. Politics these days, John Truscott said, are for serious people with serious agendas.

I've long flogged the untrue argument that ruptured bipartisanship is not a bipartisan problem. It's the product of one party drifting off to an extreme, and deriding opinions that aren't their own. As instructive as it is that Truscott mocked the idea of a guy with a strong history of unifying and bipartisanship as out-of-date in 2004, it's just as telling that Truscott's former boss and ex-governor continues to insist that global warming is not occurring, or that solving the problem will cost us jobs. Why bring someone like that to the table, you ask ... someone who will immediately and unalterably insist that you're wrong, wrong, wrong just because your opinion is different from theirs.

It might seem odd that a post about bipartisanship is called "Date rape." Not really. About a decade ago, that's what conservative activist Grover Norquist called bipartisanship. He also said that he didn't want to eliminate government, just shrink it to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub (he also predicted in 2004 that by 2006 the Democratic Party would be marginalized to the point where it could be drowned in a bathtub).

These days, I understand that Norquist's star is a bit fallen among Republicans. Turns out that his dream of destroying government ran smack into the brickwall of expectations by the governed. People went along with his program of tax cuts only so long as the cops stayed on the beat, and the schools didn't start falling apart. According to a report I heard last night on NPR, even the Christian Coalition is starting to fracture under the weight of spending too much time demonizing gays and not enough time providing for the impoverished.

The War

Three years ago, I stepped outside what most of my former colleagues might have thought proper ethical borders and protested the impending war in Iraq. I spent a cold February afternoon marching down Michigan Avenue in Lansing with one of Mt. Pleasant's city commissioners. I was in a blue vest and polar fleece pullover, probably most of the people there took me for a badly dressed undercover narc. At least that's the vibe I got from them.

I didn't protest the war because I'd hoped to stop it, because you don't move that kind of ordnance across the ocean unless you plan to use it, but because I wanted it on record that I opposed everything that was being done in my name.

At the same time, I realized that it wasn't enough, that the blood about to be spilled would still cover everyone's hands, support/opposition regardless. But, I assumed that if my hands were a little bloody, that they wouldn't get too bloody because I didn't imagine that the occupation would become such a bloody disaster.

In the back of my mind, that's never been really good enough. It's easy, over here, to treat Iraq as just another issue. But, it isn't, and all of us have plenty of blood on our hands over this. It's easy to think of the issue as only a matter of "how many of us dead" compared to goals acheived. But, yet, we're all human beings, and that kind of thinking is more worthy for the truly vulgar like the football field.

I am reminded, at all times, of this. The sick humor, the sense of carnival adventure by embedded television reporters, the tiresome bag of excuses in supporting this ongoing crime against humanity are frankly a source of deep embarrassment for me. Everytime some idiot trots out, "Well, would you rather Saddam be in power," my answer is, "Compared to this?!?!?" Yet, there's no escaping that I am somehow partially at fault because all I did was stand up and say, "No, if you insist in going down this path, I'd prefer you not do it in my name."

People who know me well know that about a year and a half ago I stopped driving my car. At the time, it was fueled mostly by sheer economics. When I finally sat the thing, it cost me $40 a month for basic insurance (including the premium for having a clean driving record), which at the end of the year totaled more than the bluebook value of my car. In short, if I'd driven my car into a wall and collected full value from my insurance company, the amount would have been about as much as half a year's worth of insurance premiums.

Odds are that I would have never been in another accident, or even a traffic altercation, since everywhere I go on a regular basis is less than a mile from my home. For one four-month stretch, I never got the thing to highway speed, in fact.

At the end of the summer, the plan was to buy a clunker and make it through the winter. I changed my mind the day after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and lines began to form at the local gas station.

But, there was something else, a nagging feeling that we had invaded Iraq for oil, or more to the point, to open up the region and secure oil supplies before the growing economies of India and China swallowed them up. In that sense, the American economy is driven by the stuff, which means that it was otherwise sound economic policy to invade Iraq. Conservatives like to mock the idea that we invaded for oil, as though invading for oil is strictly a question of corporate profit. But, I know no serious adult who understands how the economy works and what is meant by the growing thirst for oil around the world, especially in India and China.

Boiled down, that means our national security requires the sacrifice of living, breathing human beings for the sake of keeping our engines operating.

That's insane, insane in ways I can't possibly describe. If we regard Aztec culture as deeply wrong for sacrificing human lives for their gods, how can we possibly justify sacrificing human lives for the sake of our god damned machines. The analogy to the cold, intelligenct tripods given to us by Wells is appropriate in ways not intended by the author. So is the line from the new classic film Fight Club, "The things you own, begin to own you."

Giving up the car hasn't washed my hands entirely of blood. I still rely on engines to bring me things like food, and also heat in the winter. I can sit out in my garden, and dig with my hands and plant my own food. I can decline to become a part of the world and debt. I can pedal around all day long. I can stand at the sink all the live-long day and scrub, scrub, scrub my hands with brillo pads. But, none of it will completely wash off the blood, because everytime someone dies in Iraq, I am partially responsible.

On the road

Well, I missed the third gubernatorial debate. That doesn't mean a whole lot, although I'm hearing rumors that DeVos made the dubious claim that recycling has declined during the Granholm administration.

Is it so? I have no idea. No one else does, either. It's not something that can be easily measured. The real question is what Dick DeVos would do to increase recycling. Or, what any part of his environmental platform that isn't "cut taxes" and "streamline regulations."

Maybe he came up with some magical plan to protect the environment. I have been on the road the last three days.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Couple of things

Well, it's snowing outside, and the temperature is now 28 degrees. Anyone still planning their "first snowfall of the year" office pool is shit out of luck. But, here are a couple of things to ponder today:

*--When posting last night about the governor's endorsement by key environmental groups, I'd neglected to include a quote, a prime quote, a quote that entirely sums up the approach today's Republican Party takes to the environment.

"Typical liberal blather. It's amazing what you can get away with when you're not constrained by the truth. These groups are a subsidiaries of the Democrat Party. The only news would be if they didn't endorse her."

The man behind the words is John Truscott, DeVos' chief P.R. flak. The quote is instructive on many levels, not the least of which is the generally dismissive attitude by today's GOP towards environmentalists.

It wasn't always that way, as anyone who's read Dave Dempsey's excellent biography of former governor William Milliken understands (by the way, Dempsey has a new blog home, for anyone who might regularly visit his site ... link updated in my blogroll as of 2 minutes after posting this). Christ, the Republicans gave us the Environmental Protection Act, ANWR, and the first conservation-minded president.

*--Meanwhile, the Midland Daily News is capable of laying incredible eggs, but none so far as big as today's editorial about the state Board of Education's decision to bar intelligent design from science classrooms. For instanc:

This begs the question: What if a student brings up the idea of intelligent design in a science class and the teacher allows a discussion to occur? Is that teacher subject to a penalty? Does the State Board of Education expect the teacher to squelch such a discussion, in effect censoring what an inquiring mind wishes to discuss? How is the State Board of Education prepared to enforce this decision?

Sweet weeping Jesus. Why would the State Board get involved in a single incident? For people who constantly preach the evils of big government, why wouldn't they assume that the proper route for this kind of thing is first the building principal, followed by the superintendent, and then to the district's board of education.

What is probably most insulting is the faux populism, the "let the local people decide."

Suppose a math teacher saw fit to teach that the Pythagorean Theorem was false and that Pythagorus was in league with the Devil. Suppose that teacher's board of education consisted of like-minded people? Would they have different impressions of "local control, or would they support someone's right to incompetently teach math until someone actually tries it?

Endorsements

Jennifer Granholm today picked up a handful of endorsements from environmental groups and also from Esquire magazine.

I can't link to a source, because it's a MIRS article and you need to subscribe (I'm trying out a free trial), but the environmental groups are essentially the major ones -- Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and Clean Water Action.

The Esquire endorsement was kind of surprising, not because of who they endorsed. Frankly, I had no idea that Esquire endorsed candidates, especially in a day and age when newspapers are increasingly shying away from them (that doesn't stop the News from telegraphing its intentions in nonsensical debate follow-ups ... was I the only person who caught that after DeVos said he got the White House to promise to meet with the Big Three that it turned out that the meeting will go exactly as the White House told Granholm it would?).

It's hard to interpret the endorsement by the environmental groups, though. On one hand, she at least appears to understand the issues. On the other hand, her willingness to engage the issues tends to be spotty. Some of her support by hard-core environmentalists I think is based more on the very real fear that DeVos will do a shitty, shitty job on the environment.

"God in the Gaps" loses out

I don't suppose this is a great surprise. This decision was delayed mostly for good form, rather than because the state Board of Education really thinks that schools should teach the incomplete questions of evolution.

Perhaps someone will ask Dick DeVos about it tonight.

Not lecturing vs. not saying anything

The Foley scandal has highlighted, among other things, the serious limitations of corporate journalism as practiced today.

He said/she said journalism is a symptom of the pressures of today's journalism, in which Quantity is Job One. It is made necessary by the transition of news product as filler around ads, rather than the purpose for publishing the paper. These days, quality reporting is less important to a newspaper than is whether the paid percentage of ads can, at the end of the day, cover the bills.

The Internet has given newspapers a perfect out. The rise of bloggers has given newspaper executives an excuse to practice less confrontation journalism on the grounds that people don't want to be lectured, but want to have a dialogue. This sounds like code for not wanting to present something akin to a strong opinion.

What it amounts to is keeping news and opinion writing as context free as possible. If you want to make sure no one accuses you of having a bias, make sure no one knows what you really think.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this kind of thing is really doing newspapers any good. Going to the Web, presenting everything as part of a dialogue hasn't stanched the flow of readers to places where they can get free information, or blogs where they fundamentally agree with the guy writing it. The printed editions of most newspapers continue to lose readers.

And, there is evidence that this kind of thing is a product only of centrist or leaning left newspapers. Conservative writers have no problem making a point, whether or not it makes any sense.

The jury is still out on whether staking out the center is a sound business strategy. That's different than interpreting objectivity as giving both sides equal weight and equal space in every story. That, as we know, is a loser in both presenting something akin to the truth and turning a profit.

Freedom of speech

But first: We have many critics of the critics, especially loud and dominant in this regressive, guilty, and servile decade. George Will, for example; William F. Buckley, for another; Tom Wolfe, for a third -- and rising above mere columnar journalism, such distinguished and literary gentlemen as Saul Bellow, John Updike, and the late John Gardner. To name but some. There are dozens of them. Hundreds. Their argument, compacted, amounts to this: communism has proved so gross an evil, the Soviet Union so dangerous an enemy, that by contrast America and its Allies appear as continents of light, exploding with human happiness. Therefore it is the writer's simple duty to condemn the former, praise the latter. Furthermore, we exist in a state of ideological war with the powers of totalitarianism -- the "present danger" -- which makes it not merely heretical by treasonous to question our own government's policies, to doubt the glory of planetary capitalism, to object to the religion of endless economic growth, or to wonder about the ultimate purpose, value, and consequences of our techno-military-industrial empire.
--Ed Abbey, A Writer's Credo

The Soviet Union of Abbey's day is dead and gone, buried but not forgotten by folks to whom it amounted to something of a golden age, a day when professional paranoia wasn't just rewarded but regarded as a noble characteristic.

These days, the Russians have been replaced by a vague collection of terrorists and Islamofacists. What does one look like? It's like pornography -- you can't describe it, but you know it when you see it.

Abbey, however, only had half the equation right. Today, there are very few writers actually willing to challenge the status quo in a meaningful way. There are some who are willing to attack American foreign policy as an expression of morality. There are some who question its president's wisdom. But, there are few -- if any -- who are willing to ask serious questions about America itself, and whether some of our underlying assumptions about it might not be based on flawed thinking. Of course, why would they ask such questions. The press today exists not to challenge people to educate themselves, but for the express purpose of being profitable.

On the other hand, there are still those -- the George Wills -- who are willing to engage in reflexive defense of their America (their America, because it's the one they believe in, is naturally the only one permitted to exist). These self-appointed guardians of the machine not only find it their duty to question the patriotism of anyone who suggests that we lower ourselves to the level of our "enemies" by engaging in things like torture or the deliberate bombing of civilian targets (which, by extension, we know will result in civilian casualties); but they also possess a sense of entitlement ... as long as what they're saying is in defense of what they consider to be good American values, they can say whatever they want in whatever forum they choose.

Michelle Malkin has a long history of saying and doing inflammatory things. Whether her video is by itself inflammatory is beside the point. Everything she does is judged against the backdrop of her previous work, which has included calls for racial profiling against Muslims and also a book that suggests that the internment of Japanese civilians during World War II (and by extension, racial profiling against Muslims today) was an okay thing. But, what is apparently driving her isn't that the video was banned, but that she was banned for attacking "suicide bombers and throat slitters" (actually, her smears usually cover entire populations). And, that's a grave insult because that means on some basic level that she and the people she maligns (including the vast majority, who are innocent) are equal.

For many of us, that's one of the points of being an American ... everyone is held to the same standard. But, for those who assume that the world operates in absolutes (that if our enemies are absolutely evil that we must be absolutely good), that's intolerable.

A matter of perspective

Dave points us to a Associated Press story today in which an EPA official defends the Bush administration's handling of the Great Lakes. The lead paragraph, in particular, is instructive:

A comprehensive plan to tackle the Great Lakes‘ most pressing environmental problems — from invasive species to sewage overflows — is on track despite complaints about inadequate federal funding, an Environmental Protection Agency official said.

Not all media outlets see things the same, naturally, especially this Lansing-area television station that turned "complaints" into "occassional compliants."

The complaints are anything but occassional, however, unless you conveniently ignore the person who is doing the complaining. The complaints are regular and loud, if you pay attention to the right people (alas, as a media outlet, ignoring the complaints means not letting your customers know they exist). But, the real question isn't whether the plan is on track, but just what timetable the plan is operating under. The plan could well be "on track," if the plan is to finish restoring the Great Lakes sometime in the early 22nd century. In fact, it might be ahead of plan.

The EPA official (pronouncation available at the Tee Vee site) said the Great Lakes have received more attention in the last two years than in the previous 30. That might well be, but what about the three years before that? And, just who prompted all the attention? The people complaining occasionally, of course.

But, the real crime is the story itself. What a poor piece of journalism. What are the complaints, and is there any validity to them? Why didn't John Flesher allow those doing the complaining to provide their insights? Why isn't there any acknowledgment of recent history there -- the Great Lakes were certainly largely ignored for 30 years by both parties, but why has there been a reawakening in the quality of the system? Could it be that the problems facing the Great Lakes have gotten progressively worse over the years, requiring some attention be devoted to them now rather than after they fully collapse?

I know, I know. Analysis and perspective is best left to the boys on the editorial board. Let them craft as pablum and content free editorial as possible.

Anyway, here's a story about John Flesher. It says much about the state of modern journalism:

A year or so ago, I participated in a tele-press conference with a bunch of environmental groups and journalists from around the state. Just after I signed in, there was a click, followed by, "Hugh McDiarmid, Detroit Free Press." Every few second, there'd be another click, followed by another introduction.

The conference began at 10:30 a.m., and after the opening presentations, McDiarmid asked a bunch of questions ... all of them intelligent and full of insight that only someone with familiarity of the issues could ask.

As the conference was winding down half an hour later, there was a click, followed by, "John Flesher, Associated Press."

McDiarmid left the Free Press for an environmental advocacy group earlier this year. Flesher, of course, is still working for the Associated Press.

Sci-tastic

I don't normally get too worked up over end of the world stories. Frankly, they're too often tied to things like the Rapture and Second Coming of Christ ... things that aren't going to happen.

But, there is something to global warming that frankly terrifies me ... especially when stories about our imminent collapse start appearing in the mainstream press.

Billmon is one of the best bloggers out there, and he was good-as-gold during Israel's fumbled invasion of Lebanon, but he also tends to lean too heavily towards the dark side ... that is, that we're all fucked.

In this case, I have to wonder how off the mark this all is. The problem isn't that I suspect we're fucked, and just waiting out the end of Western civilization, but because I wonder if we'll ever be properly prepared to deal with the problem.

Today, two articles in The Independent support my sense of worry. One supports Loveland's assertions that we're in serious peril right-fucking-now. Land and climate patterns that will turn one-third of the planet into an ininhabitable desert aren't the thing of the future. It's something we're building towards right now.

The other one doesn't contain any especially new revelations. The first articles about melting sea ice started popping up a few weeks ago ... not long after Billmon's post.

The problem is the politization of science. That is, where scientific controversies are argued not on the basis of science but on the merits of political affiliation. I remember a discussion I had with a few co-workers not so long ago over Dick DeVos' support for teaching Intelligent Design in science class. One of my co-workers, a Republican, said DeVos had just cost him his vote. Another co-worker, another Republican, asked him why a Republican would believe in evolution.

To someone who might understand science, this is perhaps maddening. You can certainly challenge certain things about evolution. You can even challenge whether it will ever be able to provide serious evidence for the origin of the species. On the other hand, there is appalling incompetence, enabled by both the Internet's easy access to bad information and inaccurate talking points, and fueled by a sense that just because someone's read a lot of books and devoted himself to something he isn't automatically better prepared to discuss it than you. In fact, this is a fairly widespread phenomenon.

Used to be that we prized education for the sake of education. Or, maybe that's just a fantasy and our standards for what you were expected to know as a member of the civilized world were just higher. These days, however, major candidates at real risk of winning major office don't have to possess a firm understanding of science or an appreciation of art or even the ability to speak a language of culture ... indeed, as Al Gore and John Kerry can attest, those things today are drawbacks.

Unfortunately, evolution and global warming are two peas in a pod. The same Michigan lawmakers who want more time to get the state school board to add time for doubt over Darwin into the curriculum, first tried to do so with legislation that would permit schools to teach alternative theories about global warming.

What alternative theories are those? There are none. Can't be, as a matter of fact. Global warming itself isn't a theory, but a phenomenon understood through -- among other things -- principles of physics.

Because of that, it's apparent that the opposition isn't itself based on science, but on uncomfortable political possiblities. Most people today who doubt global warming aren't skeptics because they've carefully reviewed the evidence and concluded that something else is afoot. It's because they assume that anything that might impose itself upon the free market must automatically be a commie plot, and any environmental problem must be the product of Chicken Little ravings.

This kind of thing, like believing in a Flat Earth or that the moon walk was faked or that immunizations don't work, once could be written off as quaint. These days, the stakes are a lot higher. Believing that immunizations are a sham are one thing, tinkering with the planet while denying that the way it works is changing is a kind of madness that is thoroughly depressing to watch.

Hitched to the unadaptable

Speaking of the Upjohn report on Michigan's economy, we're reminded that as long as Michigan hitches its economic fortunes to the Lumbering Oafs of Industry that the state is doomed. Doomed.

Buses? Light rail? Bah, once gas starts to drop again -- as it always has -- the American people will violate the terms of their rehab and go back to mainlining gasoline.

Right, and that'll happen right about the time the economies of India and China implode under the weight of their own successes.

Nestle in Newaygo?

Nestle came to Michigan, dangling the promise of jobs and growth (Industry! Commerce! Progress!) before state officials. The governor at the time, John Engler, and his chief environmental steward, Russ Harding, bit hard. During those years, there wasn't an opportunity to make someone wealthy that either would have turned down even if it'd meant selling out a nursing home of old grandmothers.

In this case, it wasn't just some guy who'd get fantastically wealthy by converting public property (in this case, water) into private profit. It was an international corporation (Perrier, now Nestle).

They've come back, wanting to dig new wells in Newaygo County. The lawsuit first brought by private citizens is still working its way through the legal system, and so far the courts have been surprisingly unsympathetic to the company's complaints that it'd invested millions of dollars in its Mecosta County bottling plant (nevermind the warnings that they'd be responsible if they invested cash in something that ultimately violated the law). The same local "whiners" are at it again, complaining that the water bottler could hurt their riparian rights, rights etched into Michigan law (and rights that Harding long pretended don't exist).

Yet, something about the story sounds familiar. It's this:

"There are a couple of sites in Newaygo county we're interested in because of the proximity to the (Ice Mountain) facility in Stanwood and the possibility of the company building a second bottling facility in the region," Muchmore said.

[Muchmore is Deb Muchmore, the company's P.R. flak since they first located to Michigan. When I met Deb Muchmore, in her previously-named incarnation, she told me that she drinks bottled water in her home because the water quality where it was built was so lousy (the question is ... why build a home, in Michigan, where the water is so bad that you have to buy bottled stuff to drink?).]

Yes, we've heard this before.

Council also approved a General Development contract outlining benefits of the partnership to the city, including improvements to wellhead protection, relocation of the Department of Public Works, new recreational facilities for the school district, fairground improvements and the possibility of locating a permanent bottling plant in Evart.

If you drive through the city of Evart, you'll see a big billboard-style sign that reads, "The city of Evart welcomes Ice Mountain." At the time, the city was excited less by the prospects of selling water as it was of the jobs that would accompany a bottling facility. The city manager likened Michigan's water to the white pine, which covered the state and drove the logging industry. The city inferred that Ice Mountain meant more than someone to buy water, it meant jobs.

I suppose it's not entirely surprising to learn that the company has yet to build its second bottling facility, and that it's still dangling that possibility as an enticement.

Yet, today's story mentions that the company is also considering sites in Indiana. This is a first. As a state, Indiana is often cast as Michigan's chief foil when it comes to attracting jobs. Even if unwittingly (or as the first shots in a campaign), environmental activists should take warning ... if the company decides to build its second facility in Indiana (based on the company's history, a more likely choice), be prepared to get blamed for sending jobs to other states.

About me...

Well, it appears that you've stumbled into The Clearing. Welcome.

The Clearing is my place among the trees. It used to be that the deep forest was a wild, dangerous place. All kinds of nasty things were supposed to live there. And, it just wasn't the forest. Any piece of wilderness was supposed to be filled with unimaginable ugliness, and it was only through the pacifying force of civilization that we could achieve goodness and light. We've since figured out that's not the case, and a clearing in the woods is no longer a refuge from the dark but just part of the natural life cycle of a forest. To me, in fact, wilderness is safer and makes more sense than does the city.

The burned-in photo of lichen was taken last year near Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. I was there on vacation with my mom and my son. You can read about it here, here, here, here, and here (see next paragraph).

Update, Dec. 2, 6:36 p.m.--The tree comes from a photo I took in Mt. Pleasant's Island Park on the last day of November, 2006, for my first redesign. The old photo was a burned in photo of some lichen taken during a May trip to Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. By all means, read about it through the links above.

When people ask you about yourself, mostly the first thing that comes to mind is what job you do. My answer is that I consider myself an environmentalist. That is to say that my lifestyle and personal attitudes are all shaped by the natural world in which we live. People like to push environmental policies to save the planet. The planet doesn't need our assistance. Environmentalism is about saving the human race, and if I hug a tree it's only because the tree manufactures oxygen I require for life.

Luckily, based on the way things work, you usually deserve whatever fate you meet. A person who goes into the wilderness well prepared will usually make it out okay. Someone who wanders into the forest in nothing but a pair of blue jeans learns the hard lesson that wet, heavy cotton doesn't trap heat and that most cases of hypothermia occur somewhere between temperatures in the mid-40s to low-50s. So, it goes with humanity as a whole.

Update, 3:57 a.m., Dec. 3--A quick word on the content. This is largely a politically-oriented blog, and largely focused on environmental issues. But, there will be considerable straying, as necessary, to include mockery of those who have -- to force a metaphor -- wandered into a forest snowstorm wearing blue jeans.