Category: Ethics in Government

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government Tagged with , , , , ,

Outrageous! Under normal circumstances, the legal limit for radioactive iodine 131 in water is 3 picocuries per liter.

But in case of a nuclear accident, that standard goes out the window (or perhaps I should say, out the cooling tower), with the recent adoption by the Environmental Protection Agency of a Bush-era backdoor plan for nuclear accident response. A Forbes article about this travesty, “EPA Draft Stirs Fears of Radically Relaxed Radiation Guidelines,” sounds the alarm:

The new EPA guide refers to International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines that suggest intervention is not necessary until drinking water is contaminated with radioactive iodine 131 at a concentration of 81,000 picocuries per liter. This is 27,000 times less stringent than the EPA rule of 3 picocuries per liter.

This is one of many alarming standards relaxations in the new regs. Another, allowing for 2,000 millirems of radiation exposure over time, is expected to increase the number of cancer deaths  from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 23.
Though it’s only a draft, it has been adopted as interim policy. And there’s enough concern that Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility issued a press release harshly critical of the new regulations.
My thanks to local journalist Stephanie Kraft, whose article in the Valley Advocate alerted me to this.
This is an absolute outrage!
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Democracy, Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Kansas State Representative Dennis Hedke is definitely in the running for Idiot Politician of the Year. This clown has introduced HR 2366, a bill that

would prevent public funds from being used “either directly or indirectly, to promote, support, mandate, require, order, incentivize, advocate, plan for, participate in or implement sustainable development.” The prohibition would extend to “any activity by any state governmental entity or municipality.”

The bill defines sustainable development thusly:

“sustainable development” means a mode of human development
in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the
environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but
also for generations to come, but not to include the idea, principle or
practice of conservation or conservationism.

In other words sustainable development—development that has the audacity to meet human needs now and into the future—would become ineligible for any government funding in Kansas. Forget about a school building designed to last 90 years, or even 25. Forget about economic incentive programs that use the green economy to create jobs in impoverished. How could sustainable development make an enemy?

Especially since the business case for sustainable development is so strong. All the research I’ve seen shows that sustainability pays huge dividends to companies, governments, and consumers.

If this ridiculous bill were to become law, presumably government money could only be used to build buildings or bridges that disintegrate in less than one human generation…that have zero energy efficiency features…that will lock their owners into a downward spiral of spending more and more money to feed an avoidable fossil-fuel “jones.” And how you can separate conservation from sustainability or sustainable development is beyond me.

One could even read the definition as preventing any contracts with companies like GE, Ford, General Motors, Walmart, even oil companies that have also invested in solar wind, or hydro.

But wait—it gets worse! There’s a nice little bit of reactionary censorship and thought-control in the legislation—just the sort of thing that right-wingers who claim to love freedom should oppose:

This prohibition on the use of public funds shall apply to: (1) Any activity
by any state governmental entity or municipality;
(2) the payment of membership dues to any association;
(3) employing or contracting for the service of any person or entity;
(4) the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet,
publication, electronic communication, radio, television or video
presentation;
(5) any materials prepared or presented as part of a class, course,
curriculum or instructional material;
(6) any current, proposed or pending law, rule, regulation, code,
administrative action or order issued by any federal or international
agency; and
(7) any federal or private grant, program or initiative.

And yet this guy claims to be such a defender of liberty that the bill contains this explicit agenda:

to support, promote, advocate for, plan for, enforce, use, teach,
participate in or implement the ideas, principles or practices of planning,
conservation, conservationism, fiscal responsibility, free market
capitalism, limited government, federalism, national and state sovereignty,
individual freedom and liberty, individual responsibility or the protection
of personal property rights…

What kind of nutcase would write and submit such a law? How about one who happens to have a day job as a geophysicist whose clients include some 30 oil and gas companies (according to this article in TriplePundit). And one who has also introduced legislation to have school teachers argue against the evidence of climate change. Liberty, apparently, does not extend to those with whom Rep. Hedke disagrees.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Media Ethics, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Shocking:  at least 13 times during the administration of George W. Bush, various US embassies abroad were attacked—with fatalities in several instances. This number excludes the US Embassy in Iraq, which was attacked frewquently—I checked two of these, chosen at random, and both were easy to verify.  13 or more terrorist attacks on US embassies from 2002-2008, many of them with far more dire consequences than Benghazi: 36 people dead (including nine Americans) in one attack, in Saudi Arabia; 16 in another—one of two in Sana’a, Yemen (there were also two in Karachi, Pakistan. And George W. Bush, according to the article, did nothing to boost embassy security after these terrorist attacks.

Yet somehow, those who have been vilifying Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice over this were strangely silent. No outrage from the likes of Lindsay Graham and John McCain when a Republican, even an unelected one, was at the reins. Democrats were quiet too. They actually believe their own rhetoric about defending our president in times of crisis, even when he’s wrong.

It shouldn’t be a surprise. After all this is the same Republican crowd that fiddled while His Imperial Delusional Majesty burned up the Bill Clinton budget surplus and replaced it with soaring debt and massive deficits stemming from his two illegal and immoral wars, from corruption, and from giveaways to corporations that didn’t need them, at the expense of the safety net—but turned into deficit hawks and affordability watchdogs the moment Obama took office. And why does the media give these clowns a platform, under the circumstances?

I certainly have my issues with Obama, and have criticized him often in this space and elsewhere. But we all need to call attention to the blatant Republican hypocrisy on this and a host of other issues. Let’s be fair, people!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government, Greenwashing, Technology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Scary article on Huffington Post: Duke Energy’s Oconee nuclear power plant is at serious risk of flooding–and the NRC has lied to Congress about it. The plant is only 11 miles downstream from Jocassee Dam, whose likelihood of failure has been estimated at a completely unacceptable 1 in 163 per year. If Jocassee fails, it could generate a 16.8-foot wall of water at Oconee–which is only built to handle a 5-foot flood.

This highly dangerous nuclear power plant plant should be Shut. Down. Now. Fukushima completely eliminates the “it can’t happen here” argument.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government, Green Business, Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Kafka must be having a good laugh over this.

LEED certification for US government buildings has been a huge success story:

Since 2003, the General Services Administration (GSA)’s 91 LEED-certified and 219 pending buildings, totaling over 14 million certified square feet of space, can take credit for:

  • Lowering emissions by 20 percent
  • 20 percent lower energy intensity
  • Switching 16% of overall energy use to renewables
  • 14% reduction in water use since 2007

In and out of government, both the business case and the planetary case for LEED are clear:

In the last twelve years, LEED has aided the development of better products, better designs, better engineering, and better buildings. LEED has now grown into the most widely used high-performance building rating system in the world.  Today more than 12,300 commercial projects and over 20,000 residential units have achieved LEED certification.  An additional 1.6 million square feet of space is certified every day.

The business case for LEED is unassailable.  It saves U.S. businesses and taxpayers millions of dollars every year.  Furthermore, an organization’s participation in the voluntary LEED process demonstrates leadership, innovation, conservation stewardship and social responsibility, while providing a competitive advantage. All of these are reasons why small businesses, Fortune 100 companies, homeowners, governments and non-governmental organizations are using LEED to save money and save resources every day.

Now the latest idiocy in Congress is to try to force the GSA to abandon the well-respected LEED rating system. Why? To protect the interests of toxic chemical manufacturers whose products can’t qualify for LEED certification.

Earth to Congress: getting rid of toxics is part of  how you get green buildings. Duh!

If you think Congress should allow the GSA to continue using LEED in its building design criteria, here’s a petition you can sign. It’ll be turned in Tuesday, so go and sign it now before you get distracted.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government, Politics Tagged with , ,

I was out of the country and missed this important news: it is now illegal to conduct fracking in the state of Vermont.

Fracking—a highly toxic method of extracting natural gas by filling rocks with poisonous chemicals and blowing them apart—has been linked to severe water pollution, among other problems.

This continues Vermont’s record of progressive legislation that includes forcing the owners of Vermont Yankee to abide by the end of its original licensing term (unfortunately overridden by a federal judge who, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, wildly overreached his authority) and providing universal health care.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, language, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , , ,

Either Mitt Romney is trying to add comedy to his repertoire or he’s gone delusional on us.

At least twice last week, he made off-the-wall statements accusing Obama of Romney’s own much-indulged-in behaviors and attitudes.

Here’s the Wall Street Journal’s report on Romney calling Obama “out of touch.”

Let’s see…Romney is the man who revels in being in the One Percent, talks about the Cadillacs, plural, that his wife drives, brags about firing people, jokes about factory closings, and thinks that corporations are actually people (to name a few of his bizarre statements). Not since Dan Quayle have we had a probably major-party nominee for national office so good at cramming his foot into his mouth..

And then a day or two later, Romney said Obama repeatedly undergoes “a series of election-year conversions” on his issue positions. It’s true, Obama has a disturbing tendency to back off anything remotely controversial once a little heat is applied by the opposition, and this is a continual disappointment to progressives. But retreating under fire is not the same as shifting with the wind. Romney changes positions so often, his own campaign strategist Eric Fehrnstrom created the wonderfully apt metaphor of the Etch-A-Sketch campaign: shake it to reset.

I live in Massachusetts and I lived here under the Romney  administration. He was very much in favor of the healthcare plan that was passed during his time at the helm, despite its strong resemblance to the Obamacare he claims to hate. I remember when he was at least somewhat protective of women’s reproductive rights. I remember a lot of positions he has abandoned and then turned around and actively trashed. People keep talking about his integrity; I see a candidate who will sacrifice any principle for votes.

So, Mitt–do you actually believe this stuff you’re spouting, or are you just trying to bring some humor into the campaign trail?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Peace and War, Politics, poverty, privacy, propaganda, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a rare occurrence: Three of my heroes made separate local appearances this week—two from the generation older than me, and one from the generation that follows me.

George McGovern
George McGovern, 89, former Senator, Democratic nominee for President in 1972, and stalwart of the ’70s-era peace movement spoke Saturday to support his new book, What It Means To Be A Democrat, to bring attention to hunger causes—and to support Rep. James McGovern’s (no relation) re-election campaign. (I’m looking forward to having the younger McGovern, one of the most progressive voices in Congress, represent me; our town just got moved into his district.)

Born in 1956, I was too young to cast my vote for McGovern in 1972—but not too young to campaign for him, which I did. I also met the candidate at a campaign rally in the north Bronx (NYC) neighborhood where I was living (not a place that typically attracted national political figures). He impressed me with his decency, although not his speaking skills (charisma was not one of his big qualities). Listening to him on a local radio station this week, I was glad he’s become a better speaker—and glad, too, that he’s still willing to buck the system and oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq…stand for positivity and discourse in politics…and be a voice for the voiceless whose safety net continues to be slashed by both parties.

McGovern, the elder, is a reminder of the days when the Democratic Party actually supported democratic values of peace, an anti-poverty agenda, and civil liberties—values that seem hard-to-find in today’s party, where the Dennis Kuciniches and Barbara Lees, Alan Graysons, and James McGoverns of the world are a tiny isolated minority at the far-left edge of a party filled with “centrists” who are less willing to back a progressive agenda than Richard Nixon was during his presidency. How can you take seriously a party that claims to be progressive and lets people like Ben Nelson and Steny Hoyer define it?

Where are the towering figures like Barbara Jordan, Birch Bayh, Bela Abzug, Shirley Chisolm, Tom Harkin, James Abourezk and so many others—all of whom served with George McGovern in Congress? Where is even a figure like Lyndon Johnson, able to grow past his southern segregationist heritage and shepherd through a series of civil rights bills? These were Democrats who were not afraid to speak their mind, not afraid to fight for justice, and willing to do what they could to steer the US toward a better path. They didn’t turn tail and start mumbling apologies any time someone called them a liberal as if it were some kind of curse word instead of a badge of honor—a disgraceful path embraced by Michael Dukakis during his 1988 Presidential run, and by far too many Democrats since.

Daniel Ellsberg
Another of my pantheon of childhood heroes, Daniel Ellsberg, 80, spoke on a panel of whistleblowers Thursday evening at Mt.Holyoke College. Ellsberg risked life in prison to release the Pentagon Papers, a massive set of documents that utterly discredited any plausible justification for the Vietnam war.

Ellsberg didn’t go to prison, though—because the government’s case was dismissed after it was discovered that the feds had way overstepped their bounds in investigating him. Unfortunately, under laws championed by and passed under both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, what they did to him would be legal today. That is a travesty, and part of what I mean when I say the Democrats have abandoned a progressive agenda. Despite whistleblower protection laws and even payment passed since the 1970s, the government is not nice when the whistleblowers go after government fraud. Whistleblowers still risk severe punishment (just look at Bradley Manning).

If you ask me, those who expose corruption at great personal risk are heroes, not criminals.

Rachel Maddow
Local weekend resident Rachel Maddow speaks tonight, also at Mount Holyoke. Maddow, who turns 39 tomorrow, has been a refreshing progressive, articulate, and intelligent voice in a generally desolate mainstream-media landscape. I’ve been a fan of hers since she made her radio debut as a morning-show newscaster on WRNX here in the Valley.

It’s great that there are people like Maddow to catch the torch as my generation, and my parents’ generation, starts passing it. We need more like her.

[Disclosure: I was not able to attend any of the events in person. This post is based on hearing McGovern and Ellsberg in separate appearances on Bill Newman’s radio show on WHMP, and on coverage in the Northampton, MA newspaper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette.]

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Ethics in Government, Politics, poverty, Social and Economic Justice

I’m pleased to bring you this guest post by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Reps. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D- Minn.)—who, along with  Rep. Michael Honda, prepared this alternative budget. If the slash-and-burn mentality of Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum makes you want to vomit, share this with your friends, colleagues, and progressive allies. The original appeared at  https://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=81&sectiontree=5,81, where you can also watch a video.

—Shel Horowitz, GreenAndProfitable.com

The Budget for All makes the American Dream a reality again. By putting Americans back to work, the Budget for All enhances our economic competitiveness by rebuilding the middle class and investing in innovation and education.  Our budget protects Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, invests in America’s future, and asks those who have benefited most from our economy to pay their fair share.

Our Budget Puts Americans Back to Work
Our budget attacks America’s persistently high unemployment levels with more than $2.4 trillion in job-creating investments.  This plan utilizes every tool at the government’s disposal to get our economy moving again, including:
• Direct hire programs that create a School Improvement Corps, a Park Improvement Corps, and a Student Jobs Corps, among others.
• Targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, and cutting-edge technological investments in the private sector.
• Widespread domestic investments including an infrastructure bank, a $556 billion surface transportation bill, and approximately $1.7 trillion in widespread domestic investment.

Our Budget Exhibits Fiscal Discipline
• Unlike the Republican budget, the Budget for All substantially reduces the deficit, and does so in a way that does not devastate what Americans want preserved.
• We achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit – unsustainable tax policies, the wars overseas, and policies that helped cause the recent recession – rather than putting the middle class’s  social safety net on the chopping block.

Our Budget Creates a Fairer America
• Ends tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans on schedule at year’s end
• Extends tax relief for middle class households and the vast  majority of Americans
• Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, in line with the Buffett Rule principle
• Eliminates the tax code’s preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends
• Abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies
• Eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge their true tax liability
• Creates a publicly funded federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good

Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home
• Responsibly and expeditiously ends our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home and abroad
• Adapts our military to address 21st century threats; through modernization, the Department of Defense will spend less and stop contributing to our deficit problems

Protects American Families
• Provides a Making Work Pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food cost 2013-2015
• Extends Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child and Dependent Care Credit
• Invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to keep families in their homes
• Invests in our children’s education by increasing Education, Training, and Social Services

 

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, language, Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

In the 1970 movie, “Love Story,” Oliver has the famous line, “Love means never having to say you‘re sorry.” It was bad advice then and it’s still bad advice.

When you do something wrong, the right response is to apologize, sincerely and without a lot of waffly “but” language or excuses. Maybe you even do something to make it up to the wronged party. Unlike Oliver, I apologize to my wife when I’ve been wrong about something or behaved badly, and she does the same to me when she’s the one who screwed up. And I apologize to other people if I’ve done something that inadvertently hurt them.

Will someone please tell Newt Gingrich that this is how mature people, and mature countries, behave? Gingrich is upset that President Obama apologized because the military in Afghanistan accidentally caught up some Korans in a batch of papers they were incinerating.

I’m betting Gingrich would stridently demand an apology if someone of another religion burned copies of the New Testament. Why does’t he see the need for an apology when someone else’s holy book is destroyed.

Or does being Republican now mean “never having to say you’re sorry”?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail