U.S. Supreme Court Supports Tax Dollars for God

In a bizarre divided opinion the US Supreme Court has given its O.K. to President Bush to spend tax dollars to advocate for God's way of doing things. Which God of course depends only on the beliefs of the President. In their logic of law inspired by divine wisdom I guess, they ignored a legal precedent from a 1968 case which said taxpayer dollars spent by Congress could be challenged if taxpayers believed they promoted religion.

The Court tossed out a legal challenge to Bush's taxpayer funded "Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives." The vote was 5 to 4. So continues the rightward swing of the Supreme Court as Bush's legacy of appointments to the US Supreme Court gains conservative momentum.

Voters who think who is President doesn't matter only need to watch the steady drift of the Court rightward and read the bizarre interpretations of the old boy network of corporate right wing conservatism that controls the majority now on the Court. Let's hear it now for the wisdom of Ralph Nader that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

Washington Post Bench Conference blogger Andrew Cohen says it very clearly:

"Indeed, so strong is the conservative bent to the court right now that even when its right-facing Justices did not agree on the legal reasons or rationale for their rulings-- which was the case in the religion case noted above-- they are able to agree to promote government sponsorship of religion and to block taxpayer efforts to prevent it. In other words, there is room for dissent even among the Court's working majority-- a bad sign for liberal judges, lawyers and litigants in the months and years to come.

People can and do and will disagree about the "correctness" of these rulings-- but no one should have any doubt now that President George W. Bush's campaign promise-- to take the Supreme Court to the right-- has been fulfilled. That question is no longer open to argument and you need only to take a few minutes to read today's rulings to understand why."

NY Times 6/26/2007 "Justices Reject Suit on Federal Money for Faith-based Office"
Washington Post 6/26/2007 "Justices Quash Suit over Funds for Faith Based Groups"

46th District Democrats Give Primary Endorsements

Last night the 46th District Democrats in N. Seattle met at Olympic View Elementary School. Over a 2 hour period over 100 Democrats debated and voted on candidates to give support to in the Primary on August 21, 2007.

Here is a list of candidates endorsed.

King County Prosecutor - Bill Sherman

King County Assessor - Scott Noble

King County Council, Dist 2 - Larry Gosset

King County Council, Dist 4 - Larry Phillips

Port of Seattle, Pos 2 - Gael Tarleton and Jack Block, Jr.

Port of Seattle, Pos 5 - Alex Fisken

Seattle School Board, Dist 1 - no endorsement

Seattle School Board, Position 2 - Sherry Carr

Seattle School Board, Positon 3 - Harium Martin-Morris

Seeattle City Council, Position 1 - Jean Godden

Seattle City Council, Position 3 - Venus Velazquez and Bruce Harrell

Seattle City Council, Position 5 - Tom Rasmussen

Seattle City Council, Position 7 - Tim Burgess and David Della

Seattle City Council, Position 9 - Sally J Clark


The 46th District Democrats also voted to endorse the King County Parks issues, Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 which are on the November ballot.

Death by Plastic- Another Inconvenient Truth

The Seattle City Council last week held a hearing on its new plan to further reduce waste and promote more recycling and reuse. One of the proposals pushed by citizens was to ban Styrofoam use in the city. Another was to require stores to charge for plastic and paper bags to encourage people to bring their own reusable bag.

What the hell, one might ask. What's the big deal about Styrofoam and plastics? Isn't Styrofoam just a bunch of small beads of light weight inert plastic particles clumped together to form take out food containers and such? Who ever got killed or even maimed by a Styrofoam food container? Isn't their benign nature one of the reasons they are used for food?

I remembered reading an article last year on the Internet about Styrofoam particles accumulating in the oceans and being ingested by zoo plankton. Concern was raised about the impact on the food chain.

I decided to look again to see if I could get more information. And now I am much more concerned. The first article I checked out was one that the Seattle Times printed last year in the Pacific Northwest Magazine. The article was entitled "Oceans of Waste - Waves of junk are flowing into the food chain"

It seems that all the plastic flowing into the sea has created a huge garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean , some 1000 miles across, twice the area of Texas and full of plastic. A researcher named Charles Moore described what he found:

In August 1998, Moore and his crew extensively sampled the surface waters of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre with a fine-mesh net resembling a manta ray. "What we saw amazed us," Moore said in an analysis for the 2001 Marine Pollution Bulletin. "We were looking at a rich broth of minute sea creatures mixed with hundreds of colored plastic fragments — a plastic-plankton soup." The team collected six times more plastic particles (by weight) than zooplankton.
Moore calls the plastic particles "poison pills" because they absorb and concentrate toxic chemicals, acting like sponges for DDT, PCBs and other oily pollutants. "It's a serious situation," he says, "when you've got a material that comes in all shapes and sizes, can mimic every type of food in the sea, and is capable of absorbing persistent pollutants that are endocrine disruptors. . . . One hundred thousand marine mammals a year are killed by entanglement (with plastic six-pack rings, fishing lines and nets); I'm not minimizing that. But the actual ability to wipe out the entire vertebrate kingdom in the ocean is with the plastic particles."

In an interview in Satyya Magazine on line just last month Moore again emphasized the concern:

"...most of this garbage is salt-shaker stuff, the breakdown of plastic products. When we trawl a net, we get a kaleidoscope of different colored little plastic particles, mostly whites and blues. We think the reds are taken by birds and fish because they look like shrimp. And inside the garbage patch we’ve found over six times as much plastic as plankton. While outside it’s over three times as much plastic as plankton. So if you’re a fish trying to choose whether something is food or not, you can easily be confused. Gelatinous plankton feeders are heavily impacted by this. Then they’re eaten by fish, birds and turtles and so it accumulates up the food chain. And [the plastic particles are not] just indigestible, they are also a sponge for toxics, so it’s like poison pills being ingested."

In a study Moore did for the state of California he found that some 80% of the plastic waste originated from the land. Only 10% originated from industrial sources. The rest is going into the ocean from household and municipal waste and storm runoff. Some 87 % of the particles going down rivers were less than 5mm in diameter.

In an August 6, 2006 LA Times article on our altered oceans they note that industrial spills of larger plastic pellets are also occurring.

"The pellets, like most types of plastic, are sponges for oily toxic chemicals that don't readily dissolve in water, such as the pesticide DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Some pellets have been found to contain concentrations of these pollutants 1 million times greater than the levels found in surrounding water.

As they absorb toxic chemicals, they become poison pills. Wildlife researchers have found the pellets, which resemble fish eggs, in the bellies of fish, sea turtles, seabirds and marine mammals.

Over time, plastic can break down into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually turning to powder and entering the ocean in microscopic fragments. Some plastic starts out as tiny particles, such as the abrasives in cleaning products that are washed down the sink, through sewage systems and out to sea.

The chemical components of plastics and common additives can harm animals and humans. Studies have linked the hormone-mimicking phthalates, used to soften plastic, to reduced testosterone and fertility in laboratory animals, and to subtle changes in the genitals of baby boys. Another additive, bisphenol A, used to make lightweight, heat-resistant baby bottles and microwave cookware, has been linked to prostate cancer."

In another recent article entitled "Our oceans are turning into plastic ... are we? " for Best Life Magazine, the discussion continues, noting it's not just the toxins that adhere to plastics in the ocean that enter our food chain that are of concern, it's also the toxic chemicals that are used in making plastic that we are exposed to:

"...there’s growing—and disturbing—proof that we’re ingesting plastic toxins constantly, and that even slight doses of these substances can severely disrupt gene activity. “Every one of us has this huge body burden,” Moore says. “You could take your serum to a lab now, and they’d find at least 100 industrial chemicals that weren’t around in 1950.” The fact that these toxins don’t cause violent and immediate reactions does not mean they’re benign: Scientists are just beginning to research the long-term ways in which the chemicals used to make plastic interact with our own biochemistry."

The health and environmental issues involved in plastic production, use and disposal are serious ones that we need to address. If you are likewise concerned I urge that you contact members of the Seattle City Council to urge that they take action to address the growing plastics problem.

Click here to contact Seattle City Council members

see also:

Residents urge council panel to ban Styrofoam, end proposed landfill, Seattle PI, 6/8/2007

Foam Free Seattle

Policy Options under consideration for possible waste reduction, City of Seattle - 5/21/2007

Forget plastic bags, foam cups if zero-waste strategy adopted, Seattle Times 6/8/2007

Washington State Presidential Primary - Feb 19, 2008

Will Washington State play a role in deciding who the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees are? Looks like you'll get two chances to voice your preferences after the big "Feb. 5th Super Tuesday" vote.

A bipartisan committee to set the date for the Washington State Presidential Primary picked Feb. 19th, 2008 as the date to allow Washington voters to cast ballots for a Democratic or Republican candidate for President. The Republicans will allocate 50% of their delegates based on this vote. Democratic leaders, who don't get it, will allocate none. Instead they will only choose delegates based on the selections coming out of the party caucuses on February 9, 2008.

While I am a Democrat, I do not support the caucus system to allocate delegates to candidates. I believe it is the antithesis of what the party should stand for. The party should stand for a selection process that provides maximum access to the voting public to participate.The caucus does not do that.

Just think about it. If you want to get maximum voter participation why would you set up a system that does not allow for absentee voting? You must physically be present at a caucus to have your vote count. Who does that eliminate? Lots of people - like those that have to work that day. This includes public servants like policemen and firemen and bus drivers. It includes the elderly or infirm that vote by absentee because it is difficult or impossible for them to physically attend.

Also excluded from the caucuses are college students registered to vote in Washington state but who are out of state as well as members of the armed services who are either on duty or are out of state.

Excluded are people who are essential caregivers of others, like hospital and health care workers, childcare workers or parents who are not able to leave alone or bring their children or their elderly parents.

People who are out of state on vacation or business can not vote in caucuses.

All in all it is not a very convenient system, fair or representative of the potential voting population of our state. And it does not reflect on the ability of the candidates to appeal to this larger voting population to turn out to vote in a general election in November that will be largely votes cast with mail in ballots.

Maybe one of these years the party elite will get it. In the meanwhile we will this next year have two chances to participate in expressing our preferences for Presidential candidates. It will be interesting to see the difference in vote totals and candidate preferences between the primary and caucus.

Again for the record, I was the campaign director for Initiative 99 which set up the Presidential Primary in Washington State law in 1989.

See related articles:

Seattle PI A Primary with Meaning 6/11/2007

Horsesass.org WSRP dicks play hardball 6/11/2007

WA Secretary of State Date set for 2008 Presidential Primary 6/11/2007

WashBlog Republicans were trying to make a point with primary vote 6/11/2007

Seattle PI State Primary is Moved to Feb.19 6/12/2007

Seattle Times Presidential Primary in State to be Feb 19 6/12/2007

Ignorance is Best Way to Make Decisions According to Bush

Who needs facts? Not George Bush when it comes to global warming. His actions speak louder than words he mouths to lull us into inaction.

In a confidential report to the White House, obtained by the Associated Press and as reported today in the Seattle Times , NOAA and NASA scientists have told President Bush that:

"US scientists will soon lose much of their ability to monitor warming from pace ...the Defense Department has decided to downsize and launch four satellites ... instead of six... will now focus on weather forecasting ... Most of the climate instruments needed to collect more precise data for long periods are being eliminated." ...

"Unfortunately, the recent loss of climate sensors ... places the overall climate program in serious jeopardy," NOAA and NASA scientists told the White House in the report.

They said they will face major gaps in data that can be collected only from satellites: about ice caps and sheets, surface levels of seas and lakes, sizes of glaciers, surface radiation, water vapor, snow cover and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch, a watchdog program of the Washington-based Government Accountability Project, called the situation a crisis.

"We're going to start being blinded in our ability to observe the planet," said Piltz, whose group provided the AP with the previously undisclosed report. "It's criminal negligence."

In an ABC news report on May 29, 2007, entitled "10 Years to Climate Tipping Point" new research emphasized the urgency of having detailed accurate information such as the satellite program would provide:

Even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

With just 10 more years of "business as usual" emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, "it becomes impractical" to avoid "disastrous effects."

The study appears in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Its lead author is James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

The forecast effects include "increasingly rapid sea-level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones," according to the NASA announcement .

You can read more on the NASA-NOAA report by going to the Climate Science Watch website .

Briefing Notes on NASA-NOAA Joint Document gives a summary of report.

Impacts of NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy Certification on Joint NASA_NOAA Climate Goals is a copy of the full report dated Dec 11, 2006.

Note the date of this report - 6 months ago. There is no response yet from the White House on the Associated Press report but it is obvious that Bush has taken no action to alter the situation. If he had you can be sure the White House would have instantly responded that they had decided to fully fund the existing program to continue our long term gathering and monitoring of the global climate situation.

Bush and Cheney and their oil friendly cabal running things have no intention of seriously addressing global warming and are doing everything they can to sabotage the efforts of scientists to get accurate data and take immediate action. Bush's program is to stall as much as he can for the next year and a half any efforts to take decisive action.

Warning - look at what Bush does, not what he says he's "doing". Only then will we not be blindsided by wimpy press coverage that uncritically reports Bush's smoke and mirrors plan for global warming which does not seriously address doing much of anything. Right now it's comparable to his administration's plan to help Hurricane Katrina's victims.

His global warming study plan is on track. Don't be surprised if you see pictures of President Bush looking out the window of Air Force One once or twice to check out the global warming situation over the Atlantic Ocean as he flies to Europe for the G-8 Conference June 6-8, 2007. Do you really expect more? I don't.

The Great Bush Gasoline Reduction Deception.

Two weeks ago President Bush strolled into the White House Rose Garden and announced that he was taking action to reduce gasoline use by 20% over 10 years. Sounds great right.

Only thing is, it's a lot of smoke and mirrors. First off, when you examine the actual words of what he said it's really ambiguous as to what he has committed to do regarding reducing gasoline use. He's really made no commitment to do anything more than study the issue further and what he has proposed is patently deceptive in that overall fuel use by cars and trucks will continue to go up.

One huge problem is that while reducing something 20% sounds great it is misleading and meant to deceive the public. It is a cover for doing very little in 10 years The goal he's talking about is not a 20% reduction in fuel use, it's specifically a 20% reduction in "gasoline use". And three quarters of the 20% "reducing vehicle gasoline use" is actually a fuel shift to alternative fuels like ethanol and other biofuels.

The truth is Bush is only proposing a 5% reduction in gasoline use over 10 years and a 15% shift in use of gasoline to alternative fuels over this 10 year period. While this will have some impact in reducing dependence on foreign oil, the overall impact on reducing global warming is unclear. While shifting to some alternative fuels will reduce global warming gases, a shift to others would actually increase overall global warming gases produced.

The problem remains that all of this is hypothetical - Bush is asking for more study to produce recommendations before he leaves office next year. His answer to global warming is just like his answer to the Iraq War - leave it to the next President.

California has asked for a waiver to increase fuel efficiency standards. Bush's study proposal is in fact a way for Bush to avoid acting on this waiver before he leaves office. It's obvious he has no intent to seriously address global warming issues or make any serious attempt to actually significantly reduce our consumption of fuel and oil. The truth is he has the power to act now to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But he's not going to. He's not going to do antything to hurt his business friends in the oil industry from continuing to make record profits.

Its really up to Congress to act because Bush has not committed himself to do much of anything. Bush is just playing word games trying to pull another fast one on the public.