We all know that the world in warming. In fact, it is warming much faster that originally predicted.  We can watch reports coming from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali.

So why are the political lists so silent?

I am of the opinion that most politicians do not want to hold their own record up to public scrutiny.  LA Mayor Villatgairosa would fight Climate Change with a Million Trees and never asks where the water to grow those trees in the desert would come from.

Just to pick on a single Democratic nominee (The Republicans are hopeless on this issue except for McCain, and he is still pretty bad.) I would cite Barack Obama’s saving the world with corn based ethanol.  It is not about anything other than winning votes in Iowa, to hell with the planet.  

I could do the same with the rest of the Democratic Senate who voted 86-8 this morning on a new energy bill.  They did not even have to call back Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama to win this vote, as they have compromised away too much to gain such wide support. Even then, one of the 8 was a Democrat from Michigan… it figures.

It seems that the real action is cooling off and a lot of enviros are getting very frustrated.

I grant the bill had some good things: improved CAFE standards for example.  If Pelosi delivered that, good for her.  But in essence, this bill is little better than the Bush positions in Bali.

I am going to start posting the press releases of Green Party Presidential Candidate, Kent Mesplay, at California Greening.  At least, he is a scientist (PhD in BioMechanical Engineering) and his current job (for the San Diego Air Quality Control Board) puts him right in the middle of understanding what is happening.

I have to admit that I was initially a smidge skeptical about the progressive outcry over Jane Harman’s bill, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” which passed the House by a 404-6 count back in October.  While I believe staunchly in the protection of civil liberties, I guess I took “homegrown terrorism” to mean groups like right-wing militia, terror groups who bomb abortion clinics, purveyors of racist hate speech, and the like.  As David Neiwert said, it appeared to be an attempt to make counter-terrorism more comprehensive and complete.  But when you look under the hood, there’s a great deal to be scared about with this bill.

One of the findings of the bill is that, “the Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”

And the remedy to that is… closing off the Internet?  Reading everyone’s blog posts for “extremist” rhetoric?  

The bill calls for heightened scrutiny of people who believe, or might come to believe, in a violent ideology. (ACLU policy counsel Mike) German wants the government to focus on people who are actually committing crimes, rather than those who are merely entertaining violent ideas, something perfectly legal.

Harman’s bill would convene a 10-member national commission to study “violent radicalization” (defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change”) and “homegrown terrorism” (defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States […] to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”).

Now I’m getting nervous.  over…

It’s clear that any organization studying “violent radicalization” could head down some blind alleys pretty quickly.  The FBI’s domestic terrorism unit cites as among its greatest threats to the homeland… the Earth Liberation Front, the group that blows up Hummers.  Animal rights groups also frequently show up on these domestic terror lists.  And this national commission that would be created would be insular and potentially susceptible to politicization.

“The bill replicates what already exists without peer review and safeguards,” says Chip Berlet, a senior policy analyst for Political Research Associates, an independent non-profit research organization that studies political violence, authoritarianism, and homegrown terrorism […]

The broad wording of the bill leaves open many questions. If homegrown terrorism is defined to include “intimidation” of the United States government or any segment of its population-could the Commission or the Center of Excellence task itself with investigating groups advocating boycotts, general strikes, or other forms of non-violent “intimidation”?

“While we wholeheartedly support efforts to curtail terrorism, primarily coming from white supremacists, we would also like to see legislation that more vigorously defends civil rights,” says Devin Burghart, an expert on domestic terrorism at the Center for New Communities, a national civil and human rights organization based in Chicago.

My friend Marcy Winograd, who challenged Rep. Harman to a primary in 2006, is alarmed about this bill and thinks it needs to be blocked in the Senate.

Senator Boxer, one of our more courageous lawmakers, needs to put a hold on this bill before we see a return of the McCarthy hearings, with committees interrogating conscientious Americans who have spoken out against the war and globalization. This legislation ostensibly targets those who promote violence and extremist ideology, but if that were really the case the lawmakers supporting this legislation would be impeaching and indicting Bush and Cheney for war crimes.

During my congressional challenge, Boxer campaigned for Harman so I can only assume, since their political views often differ, that she felt a personal loyalty to the former ranking minority leader on the House Intelligence Committee. Now, however, it is time for Boxer to set aside personal loyalties and consider one’s allegiance to the future of our democracy.  Harman’s bill, though seemingly benign, would actually give the green light to multiple simultaneous cross-country hearings aimed at intimidating those who question the government.  Even if the bill were benignly conceived, its effect will be to silence debate and foster a climate of suspicion.

I think that’s slightly extreme, but it certainly COULD go that way, and the value of yet another “blue ribbon panel” is certainly outweighed by the potential loss of civil liberties and monitoring of groups who are Constitutionally engaging in their right to dissent.  So if you are concerned about this legislation, you ought to call Senator Boxer and urge a hold on it.  The bill number in the Senate is S.B. 1959.  

(full-disclosure: I work for Courage)

There is an interesting and troubling pattern emerging.  The California media is being greatly outclassed by papers from out of the state and country on the developing story about the residents of Potrero pushing back against Blackwater’s attempts to move a massive base into their town.  This seems like it could be chalked up to the major cutbacks at California newspapers over the past year, but it is a stark reminder about the impacts of those losses.  California stories are no longer being covered by California newspapers.

It was the Guardian UK who had a lengthy, detailed article on the push for a recall of the Planning Group members who had voted to approve Blackwater’s plans.  They talked to Brian Bonfiglio, Blackwater’s Vice-President who is deployed to San Diego County to work on the project.  The Guardian also interviewed a number of the town residents, including several people who were on the ballot this week.

This week it was the New York Times who dispatched a reporter to Potrero to preview the recall.  The reporter ended up breaking news, even though I don’t believe he knew it:

(much more on the flip)

Blackwater is testing an unmanned aerial vehicle, the Polar 400, a remote-controlled dirigible that can be outfitted with various sensors. Unlike traditional drones, the Polar 400 is designed to remain aloft for several days at a time.

Mr. Strong [Blackwater’s VP for Communications] said that the high-altitude blimp would be ideal for border surveillance operations or drug interdiction. He said the company wanted to win more Homeland Security contracts focused on border security training, and in choosing the location here, just eight miles from the border, Blackwater was banking on an increase in the number of border guards.

This is the first statement by Blackwater that they are aiming for border contracts.  Up until now Bonfiglio had been cagy, saying they would not turn them down if they were offered.  It was pretty obvious that with Potrero being only a few miles north of the border, that Blackwater was maneuvering themselves deliberately for border patrol work.

Heck, even the Virginian-Pilot, Blackwater’s hometown newspaper had a great story, complete with audio slideshow.  They even managed to get the dynamics around the recall right.

The planning board is an advisory body – the ultimate decision rests with the county Board of Supervisors – so a successful recall would not halt the project. It would, however, be an enormous boost for the opposition.

It has been a nasty campaign, marked by bursts of name-calling in which longtime neighbors and schoolmates have lined up against one another. And it has forced Blackwater to practice a brand of retail politics far removed from the streets of Baghdad and the corridors of power in Washington.

The Pilot is correct, this issue has very much divided the town, but the recall laid bare the actual 70-30 fault lines against and for Blackwater moving in.

Contrast that to today’s article in the San Diego Union-Tribune, which lead with:

Strictly speaking, a vote removing five members of the Potrero planning group for their support of a Blackwater Worldwide training camp means little.

Blackwater officials say they are undeterred by election results announced yesterday morning and still plan to seek county approval for their project. The planning group is only an advisory body, so a vote against the project by a newly reconstituted board of Blackwater opponents won’t stop it.

There is nothing factually incorrect with what is included in those two paragraphs.  The Planning Group is an advisory board, but the Board of Supes does have to take into account what they say when making their decision.  They cannot simply discount it.

The paper has been fairly biased towards Blackwater and this article is just one more example.

The LAT’s coverage was well, picking up an AP wire story.  It’s not a bad article, it’s just that LAT should have owned this story.  Googling the LAT and Potrero brings up this post from Robert Salladay, reminding me yet again how much of a loss it was for the paper to lose him and that blog.  

And that gets at the main point, cutbacks at the newspapers mean less people available to cover these kinds of stories.  If these stories are important enough to have the Guardian UK, NYT and Virginia-Pilot send a reporter out to California, the least the LAT can do is get a reporter to Potrero.  This is a story begging to be written: little town fights back against Blackwater, which has been all over the news for months.  And well, the SDUT, I am not sure what to say about them.  They are hemorrhaging circulation and their biased reporting is just par for the course.

This will be a long fight, as it moves to the Board of Supervisors and there will be plenty of time for more articles to be written.  California newspapers can and should do better.

Don’t forget to go over to www.BlockBlackwater.com and sign the pledge opposing Blackwater’s base.