Myth#1: The authors of these pieces are objective, disinterested scholars
Horse-hockey! Today's piece, "5 Myths About Green Energy", was written by Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute. Here are a few facts you should know about the Manhattan Institute:
- It was founded by Reagan's spymaster William Casey to promote "market-oriented principles", i.e., to give ultraconservative ideology the facade of academic rigor.
- It has included such "scholars" as Charles Murray, notorious for his book The Bell Curve, the thesis of which was basically white racial superiority. Another alumnus is David Frum, speechwriter for George W. Bush, who was responsible for crafting the most meaningless phrase ever to pass through a pair of presidential lips: "Axis of Evil."
- It has received funding to support tobacco industry positions from RJ Reynolds, Phillip Morris and Lorillard.
- Among its donors are the right wing Scaife and Koch Foundations - the latter known for funding climate denial and similar misinformation in support of its interests in the oil industry. (See Greenpeace's recent report, "Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine.").
Now just imagine you're an oil company and you want to discredit a competing product like - oh, say, "green energy". If you publish an ad with your corporate logo on it, your bias will be hard to conceal. But if you pay a right-wing think tank to write an article in a respected newspaper busting the "myth of green energy", you give your talking points that much more credibility. Such a deal!
Northern Virginians have lots of reasons to take pride in George Mason University, as a rapidly growing academic community named the #1 national university to watch in the 2009 rankings of US News & World Report, with Nobel Prize winning faculty and an occasionally great basketball team.
Unfortunately, GMU is also known as a "magnet for right wing money" which takes millions in corporate cash to run a network of centers to gin up and legitimate the latest ultraconservative talking points.
Now let me be clear: I strongly favor an academic environment that is open to debate and opinions from all across the political spectrum. But there is a difference between principled, reason-based academic stands and corporate-funded attempts to skew debate and provide a fig leaf to cover naked profit-based self-interest.
This brings me to the unfortunate role that our local university is playing in the political war over climate change. A lot of NOVA residents may not realize that GMU gives funding, support and - most importantly - academic legitimacy to some of the best known and most persistent deniers of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change - notably Patrick Michaels and S. Fred Singer. In doing so, GMU perpetuates the myth that there is widespread academic disagreement about the facts and causes of climate change when in fact there is not.
It showed Perriello talking with his constituents about the new health insurance law - talking with them as adults, which was mighty refreshing to see after a year in which calling your opponents "socialist" and prattling on about "tyranny" was treated as the height of reasoned debate.
As Perriello puts it:
...I think that those who are really passionate on either side have faded a little bit, and now the people in the middle are getting their turn to say, all right, walk me through it.
This is the law of the land now. And people get pretty excited when you go through things like extending the Medicare trust fund and bringing the cost of drugs down, allowing people into these exchanges to get cheaper health care, tax credits to small business. So, what you see is sort of a revival of the moderates in this debate. And I think people are liking what they see so far.
Talking about a law based on its actual features and merits - what a concept! Both the Congressman and the News Hour deserve credit for focusing on the facts buried deep beneath the hyperventilation.
And other politicians need to take a look at what makes Perriello such a great populist - simply breaking down the complexities of policy into clear English and hitting the pavement to talk with his constituents about it as often as possible. It's not rocket-science - it's called representative democracy and we're lucky to have a leader like him to show us how it's done. Go Tom!
All of Virginia - and much of the country - now knows that we have elected, not a conservative, but a radical to be our Attorney General. It is already clear that Ken Cuccinelli does not have a mainstream, sensible, moderate bone in his body. No, this man is determined to twist our government into a tool to realize the most extreme right-wing fantasies that only the looniest Tea Partier could ever dream up. After only two months in office, General Cooch has:
- Attacked the integrity of science and the necessity of environmental action by legally challenging the US EPA's finding that climate change represents a threat to human health;
- Attempted to reverse decades of American progress against discrimination by threatening Virginia colleges and universities that they have no right to enact policies of anti-discrimination against gays;
- Challenged the power of the Federal government to make our health care system work for people rather than insurance companies, by suing the Obama administration over the constitionality of the just-signed health care reform act.
There's no question that this guy is nuts and will do all he can to make Virginia the laughing stock of the world. The only question left for me is: HOW DO WE FIGHT HIM.