Archive for National Affairs
Agenda 21 Is Coming To Kill Your Local Tea Party
by John Weckerle
Okay, maybe not. However, having seen just about enough of the associated silliness and paranoia on the Sandia Tea Party web site, and having had just about enough of special interests and political ideologues misrepresenting sustainability for their own ends, we decided to do a little looking around and gather some information that perhaps represents something just a little closer to reality than what has been presented there and in other far-right venues. We found a few FAQ sites and others associated with organizations officially associated with Agenda 21. Predictably, what we found was substantially different from the interpretations provided by the Sandia Tea Party, and we’ll get to that presently.
We also decided to see what the other local Tea Party chapter, the East Mountain Tea Party, had to say about the issue, and were surprised to find evidence that the organization may be defunct. The domain now resolves to the Albuquerque Tea Party site, and there have been no posts to the EMTP’s Facebook page since October. With no other explanation, we must assume that the proponents of Agenda 21 are responsible for the demise. Less clear is the reason that the Chavez County Tea Party Patriots web site, as linked from the Albuquerque Tea Party site, is now presented in either Chinese or Japanese (we’re not sure which); perhaps they’ve outsourced themselves to Asia.
Now, on to Agenda 21. We will not provide an exhaustive description here but will highlight a few points and provide links for the perusal of our readers, who we believe to be just a little more fact-conscious than some. We’ll begin by providing a link to the text of Agenda 21, provided by the Institute for Global Communications (alternatively, you can download it in PDF format from the UN website). It’s a big document – 351 pages – but what we’ve read of it does not seem to support an impression of a socialist/environmental extremist conspiracy. A bit of “myth debunking” can be found in the article “Agenda 21: Just the Facts” presented by the Better World Campaign. Of critical importance: Agenda 21 is not a treaty, is not binding in any way, and does not afford the United Nations any particular authority for implementation. The article “What Is Agenda 21?” by the UN Dispatch explores the “controversies” surrounding the initiative, including the conspiracy theories being presented by various special interest and political groups opposed to what they describe as “sustainability” – which is, of course, not sustainability at all. The Wikipedia article on Agenda 21 similarly points out the initiatives voluntary and non-binding status.
A non-UN organization composed of local governments – ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability (formerly the International Council for Local Initiatives) describes itself here, stating in part: ” ICLEI is a powerful movement of 12 mega-cities, 100 super-cities and urban regions, 450 large cities as well as 450 small and medium-sized cities and towns in 84 countries. ICLEI promotes local action for global sustainability and supports cities to become sustainable, resilient, resource-efficient, biodiverse, low-carbon; to build a smart infrastructure; and to develop an inclusive, green urban economy. The ultimate aim is to achieve healthy and happy communities. We have developed stable, long-term programs to support local-level sustainability and continue to develop innovative new programs to respond to issues of international concern.” In its article “FAQ: ICLEI, the United Nations, and Agenda 21: Setting the Record Straight About ICLEI,” ICLEI-Local Governments USA states (among other things): “ICLEI is a champion of local governments. Working with elected officials, ICLEI’s World Secretariat helps voice local government needs and priorities during international negotiations and agreements that will effect local governments, such as the U.N. climate negotiations and the upcoming Rio+20 summit.”
Sustainability is not an international socialist-environmental extremist conspiracy. It is not out to take anyone’s land away, prevent anyone from having children, or force anyone into indentured service as the only means to get drinking water. We encourage our readers to follow the links provided in this article and learn more about Agenda 21 and sustainability initiatives in general.
Assaulting Battery Grants
by John Weckerle
We turn our baleful eye once again on the writings of the writings of the Sandia Tea Party. In an article titled “Stimulus Funds: Failing & Falling Into The Tank,” Edgewood Town Councilor and Sandia Tea Party internet spokesman Chuck Ring provides us a link to a Washington Times article that is apparently to be considered evidence that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has been a failure (this despite steady, albeit slow, improvements in key economic indicators): a bankruptcy filing by battery maker A123 Systems, which had “received a nearly quarter-billion-dollar stimulus grant in late 2009, but federal job-tracking figures show only a few hundred positions were created before the company joined a growing list of federally backed energy businesses that ended in bankruptcy.” The Sandia Tea Party article laments: Many a dollar has been wasted and deposited in Obama’s vast wastage pit.
Alarmed, we employed some of the advanced research that is available to New Mexico Central but apparently not to the Sandia Tea Party – Google – and found an article in the Washington Post that provides what may perhaps be a more detailed and less politically focused account of A123’s bankruptcy. In short, the stimulus-funded facilities were acquired by Johnson Controls, Inc., and are still operating, and no jobs have been lost. The company had only drawn on $129 million of the grant when it filed for bankruptcy – specifically, Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which allows the company to continue operations while reorganizing. The ultimate goal of Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not to go out of business, but to emerge from bankruptcy and continue to operate thereafter. We’ll also note that the stimulus grant has resulted in 400 jobs so far. We recommend that readers of the Washington Times article also read the Washington Post article before deciding whether reports that the A123 story represents a “failure” are perhaps a trifle overblown.
Here, And Gone, And Here, And Gone Again, And Here Again, And…
by John Weckerle
Those of our readers who are still tuned in most likely noticed that there was a nearly two-month hiatus in our coverage of – well, everything. This is probably the longest break in our commentary since we started up, and we’re still not sure just how often we’ll be posting, although we’re pretty sure it will be more often than once every couple of months.
There are two major reasons for our absence. First, your editor has experienced a reconfiguration of professional activities, and this change, while a very good one, has included both a great deal of being very busy and an unavailability of access to the blog. Second, quite simply, we got tired of being angry.
Let’s face it; when you’re spending a substantial amount of time investigating corruption and debunking politically motivated falsehoods, bigotry, and other nastiness, you run the risk of having it get to you. It can be very labor-intensive, especially for those of us who actually try to research and fact-check the things we produce, and the risk of doing so is that it typically involves immersing oneself in a rather unpleasant stew of unsavory material. Indignation, anger, and similar emotions can be a drain on one’s energies.
During a trip to Washington, D.C. last week, I had a discussion touching on this with a colleague. We both probably fall within the “more or less centrist” realm, although we are likely on different sides of the theoretical political mean. One of the many things we agreed upon was that the fringe groups are co-opting the political discourse, and in a destructive manner. The problem is that a lot of the rest of us appear to be either falling for it or bowing out, and the result has been a prolonged economic downturn, the appearance of a negative national attitude, and a dubious future. We’re stuck with a legislature that cannot seem to make progress on what should be sensible national priorities because it is mired in ideological conflict, and hardly a half-year goes by without Congress flirting with national financial disaster over some dearly held, all-or-nothing political position that is probably not held as an absolute necessity by most of us.
It is time for line-in-the-sand politics to come to an end. The nation faces serious problems that need attention and action, and opportunities that should be seized. If we turn our attention to what works rather than what we believe (as opposed to what we can demonstrate), we can make headway and not only bring our economy back from the brink, but set it on a course to reach new heights that include opportunities for all – and we can do it without destroying the environment or leaving people behind. To accomplish this, however, we’re going to have to take the spotlight off the fringes, get it on center stage, and let the bitter, anti-government extremists wail alone in the darkness.
At this point, we’ve pointed out enough dishonesty and prejudice on the part of the fringes to make it clear that these are the hallmarks of their efforts. At this point, anybody who’s still taking them seriously is probably going to continue to do so, regardless of what we demonstrate concerning their credibility, and we’re tired of sounding like a broken record. We’ll probably take aim once in a while, but likely with far less frequency. Instead, we may wish to bring out information that will shine a light under the rocks, so to speak, and counter the disinformation being circulated by special interests masquerading as grass-roots movements with actual information that has at least some support from the world of facts and real analysis.
In short – it’s time for us to move on – and by “us,” we don’t just mean those of us at New Mexico Central headquarters, but all of us who can. Let those of us who can come together do so, and let the others remain apart if they must.
East Mountain Representative Smith Reveals Sordid ALEC Past
by John Weckerle
Our readers know that, given our relative disinclination toward hyperbole, the word “sordid” is not one we make a habit of using. In fact, until now, we have never used it – and as of now, we can say we have used it only twice, both in the same article, but never seriously.
In response to our first ALEC and Us article on New Mexico legislators involved with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and a follow-up inquiry, State Representative Jim Smith provided a prompt (last Monday) response disclosing his sinister past with ALEC – or, more accurately, the lack thereof. Mr. Smith indicated that his involvement with the organization was limited attendance at an ALEC-sponsored dinner in Santa Fe, at which many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle were present. The dinner was interrupted by the Occupy movement, and Mr. Smith recalled that “a couple of members spoke briefly about being pro-business” but no legislative agenda was discussed.
Mr. Smith indicated: “Although I do attend a lot of meetings sponsored by various groups, I don’t actually join many, if any, of them.” This sounds like good policy for a legislator, and we’re glad to see it operative in this situation.
State Senator Sue Wilson-Beffort, to whom we sent essentially the same e-mail message as Mr. Smith, has not yet replied. If a response is not forthcoming soon, then perhaps research will substitute. We’ll keep our readers posted.
PSA: Unite Against the War on Women Rally – April 28th, 2012
Editor’s note: We received this while we were preparing the first of our articles on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which included a discussion of legislation affecting women in Wisconsin. From the standpoint of timing, we considered it a significant coincidence.
Albuquerque, NM, April 5, 2012: Local Pre-Law Student and, Model Teddie Rivers, and the Women’s Resource Center join the Unite Against The War on Women campaign. They are organizing on campus to gather support for The National Women’s March on April 28th 2012 at the Round House in Santa Fe, N.M.
Unite Against the War on Women is an effort to educate local citizens, as well as our Local, State, and Government leaders on the astonishing legislation and rhetoric taking place in our House of Representatives, the media, and many of the States across our country attacking women’s rights, from healthcare access and reproductive rights, to voting rights and human rights.
Ms. Rivers and other National Women’s March coordinators will be tabling events on the UNM Campus on Thursday, April 19; Tuesday, April 24; and Thursday, April 26 from 11AM – 1PM to answer questions and educate the public about the April 28th March.
Local coordinators will be meeting at the Rail Runner Station in downtown Albuquerque at 8:15AM on April 28th before march and commuting to Santa Fe via the Rail Runner, and are asking as many people possible attending the march to board the train to Santa Fe.
Rally will be held on April 28, 2012 from 10AM – 2PM at The Round House in Santa Fe, N.M. The rally is expected to draw a crowd of 2,000 New Mexican women declaring: “Enough is Enough.
Unite Against the War on Women Mission Statement:
Help defend women’s right and pursuit of equality. Join Americans all across the United States on April 28th, 2012, as we come together as one to tell members of Congress in Washington DC and legislators in all 50 states. “Enough is enough!”
All Americans have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, including contraception, without interference from government, business or religious institutions.
Everyone is invited to join, plan, and rally as we unite to demand that every person be granted equal opportunities, equal right, and equal representation.
Contact:
Teddie Rivers
UNM Campus Organizer
teddie@unm.edu
ALEC And Us – IRS Complaint And Lobbying Issues
Editor’s note: In our previous ALEC And Us article, we called upon New Mexico legislators in general and our own District legislators – Sue Wilson-Beffort and Jim Smith – to disclose and clarify the nature and extent of their involvement, if any, with the American Legislative Exchange Council. We followed up with an e-mail to Ms. Wilson-Beffort and Mr. Smith on Friday. We have not yet received a response, but let’s remember it’s the weekend and the e-mail went out on Friday. We hope to hear from them soon.
by John Weckerle
The New York Times has run an article expanding on the activities of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), including its lobbying, and also its status as a tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization. An NPR article also casts doubt upon the organization’s charity status. Both articles note that a watchdog agency, Common Cause, has filed a complaint with the IRS alleging that ALEC has abused its tax-exempt status. The NPR article provides some analysis indicating that precedent suggests ALEC may be on the wrong side of the law in this regard.
The Times article characterizes ALEC as a “stealth business lobbyist.” Of particular interest to us in this regard is whether the group’s activities in New Mexico may have violated New Mexico laws governing lobbying. A quick look over the list of registered lobbyists in New Mexico does not reveal any indication that ALEC has any registered lobbyists. It is unclear which legislators may have received input from ALEC’s members, whether those members were registered as lobbyists in the state, and to what extent individual New Mexico legislators may have received campaign contributions from ALEC members. While we have not completed a detailed analysis of information available through FollowTheMoney.org, a preliminary review suggests connections among the various ALEC members.
ALEC And Us
by John Weckerle
We recently published an article on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, in part a response to a Sandia Tea Party article on the subject. We urged our readers – and everybody else, although we’re not sure how they’d know we were urging without reading – to refrain from speculating on the degree to which race was a factor in the tragedy until the facts are in. We repeat that request, and want our readers to understand that our interest in mentioning the case is associated with Florida’s now-infamous “Stand Your Ground” law. It is not the merits of this law, but its origins that interest us today. Multiple sources have linked the law to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a consortium of conservative state legislators and corporate interests. Put simply, this “consortium” drafts legislation for enactment at the State level, and its members then bring that legislation forward in their individual State legislative bodies. The range of legislative subjects is incredibly broad, and the legislation typically focuses on advancing conservative approaches but especially corporate interests.
In response to the Martin/Zimmerman tragedy, a number of corporate/nonprofit entities – Kraft, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Intuit, and the Gates Foundation – were reported to have pulled out of the organization. You might, and should, question why they were there in the first place. We question whether some of them left at all: as of 7:30 MDT today, the organization’s web site continues to list Derek Crawford of Kraft Foods as one of its Private Enterprise Board members. With the recent announcement that ALEC is discontinuing its efforts associated with gun laws and other “non economic” causes came a few articles (a random one here) reporting that ALEC will no longer promote “social policy,” we saw a few articles suggesting that ALEC was doing the National Rifle Association’s bidding. On the other hand, a few news outlets did some reporting casting some doubt with respect to the question as to who was errand boy to whom (one here). Leaving aside that question, we’ll simply note that ALEC, an organization of which we’ve been aware for years, found itself back in the slightly dim area next to the spotlight. The entire ALEC issue had received less attention than one might have expected – but then again, those corporate sponsors do buy television, radio, and TV time.
As a result of the attention, ALEC issued a statement that they were discontinuing their “non-economic” efforts. We move on to another subject associated with ALEC, albeit one that has received even less attention in the popular press, that is certainly economic in nature: the recent and relatively quiet repeal of a law in Wisconsin requiring equal pay for women. As our readers know, we do tend to want to go for “mainstream” news sources where we can, but these seem so far down on the search indices on this subject that we have our choice of linking to a Huffington Post article or Monday’s Daily Show coverage – and while we are providing a link to the latter, and we think it’s worth watching, we’d like some of our more family-oriented readers to know that there’s a bit of raunch toward the end of the latter story. Of these two sources, only the Daily Show short brings forward the role of Wisconsin legislator ALEC member Glenn Grothman – and again, since some of our readers are perhaps not interested in some of the imagery that might be found in that video, we’ll summarize to the extent that Mr. Grothman is on record as saying that making money is perhaps more important to men than women because young men may want to be breadwinners some day (New York Daily News article here). We invite our readers to weigh in on that position… According to the Daily News article, other pieces of legislation of interest to women included one “barring abortion coverage through health insurance exchanges” and another “mandating doctors to consult privately with women seeking abortions.”
With all the renewed attention on ALEC, we started wondering just who in the New Mexico legislature might be involved – because, quite frankly, having New Mexico laws written by a consortium of business interests and predominantly out-of-state legislators does not sit any better with us than it probably does with most New Mexicans. The ALEC site doesn’t list all the members, but we found the following list in a Sourcewatch article:
House of Representatives
- Rep. Paul Bandy (R-3), ALEC State Chairman[20] and Guest at the December 2010 International Relations Task Force meeting[27]
- Rep. Jimmie Hall (R-28)[21][109] and Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Alternate
- Rep. William Gray (R-54), ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Alternate
- Rep. Nathaniel Quentin Gentry (R-30), ALEC Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Alternate
- Rep. Rick L. Little (R-53), ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Member
- Rep. Alonzo Baldonado (R-8), ALEC Education Task Force Member
- Rep. Dennis Roch (R-67), ALEC Education Task Force Member
- Rep. Paul Bandy (R-3), ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Member
- Rep. Nora Espinoza (R-59), ALEC Health and Human Services Task Force Member
- Rep. Larry A. Larranaga (R-27), ALEC International Relations Task Force Member
- Rep. William R. Rehm (R-31), ALEC Public Safety and Elections Task Force Member
- Rep. Anna M. Crook (R-64)[18], ALEC Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Member
- Rep. James R.J. Strickler (R-2), ALEC Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Member
- Rep. Thomas A. Anderson (R-29), ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force Member
- Rep. Dennis J. Kintigh (R-57), ALEC Civil Justice Task Force Member
Senate
- Sen. Sander Rue (R-23),[110]Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Member
- Sen. George K. Munoz (D-4), ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Member
- Sen. William E. Sharer (R-1)[18], ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Member
- Sen. Mark L. Boitano (R-18), ALEC Education Task Force Member
- Sen. Vernon Asbill (R-34), ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Member
- Sen. Sue Beffort (R-19), ALEC Health and Human Services Task Force Member
- Sen. William H. Payne (R-20), ALEC State Chairman[20] and International Relations Task Force and Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Member
- Sen. Rod Adair (R-33), ALEC Civil Justice Task Force Member
- Former Sen. Kent L. Cravens (R-21) (resigned September 2011 to become lobbyist for [[New Mexico Oil and Gas Association[111]), former ALEC State Chairman,[112] and Public Safety and Elections Task Force member
Now, that’s 21 legislators, not counting former Senator Kent Cravens, who apparently experienced the ALEC version of the Rapture – all but one of them Republicans. What we found most interesting was that our locality is quite well represented among the ALEC ranks. Senator Sue Wilson-Beffort, of Senate District 19 is prominently listed, as are ALEC State Chairman Senator William Payne of District 20, Senator Mark Boitano of Albuquerque’s District 18, Senator Sander Rue of “just across the river” District 23, and Senator Rod Adair of District 33, just to our south. On the House side we have Jimmie Hall, Nathaniel Quentin, Larry Larranaga, and Bill Rehm of Albuquerque; Thomas Anderson of western Bernalillo County; District 8’s Alonzo Baldonado; and another neighbor to the south, Dennis Kintigh.
We are asking our readers to alert these people to the existence of this article, and we are inviting them to provide us with a disclosure of their involvement with ALEC and a list of bills that they have introduced or supported that are or were supported by ALEC or based on its model bills. We are also, quite bluntly, asking that every New Mexico legislator with any ties to ALEC sever them immediately and henceforth serve their State’s interests and not those of other entities. We especially direct this request to our own Senator, Sue Wilson-Beffort -and to be fair, to our Representative Jim Smith, whose name we are very glad not to see on the list. We suggest that all our readers contact their Senators and Representatives, and demand to know whether they are a part of the ALEC network or supporting its initiatives. Let’s keep the running of New Mexico to those who live here.
A few related links:
- Source Watch – American Legislative Exchange Council
- NPR – Who Writes Our Laws?
- WCVB TV Boston – NRA, ALEC Team Up For Causes Beyond Gun Laws
- WFIE TV – ALEC Stops Pushing “Stand Your Ground” Laws
- Crooks and Liars: Gates Foundation Announces It Will Withdraw Funding From ALEC
- Sarah Kennedy: Our Resident Smart Aleck Talks About ALEC
Swift Blog Veterans For Old, Debunked Stories
by John Weckerle
We find ourselves, as always, in bewildered awe at the jaw-dropping oddness we see out the in the flatter parts of the political bell curve. We refer once again to a Sandia Tea Party article, this one titled “A Slap in The Face By FLOTUS” (this refers to the First Lady of the United States, currently Michelle Obama. We’re getting just a bit tired of the constant appending of “OTUS” onto just about everything; then again, we got sick of the “you-name-it-gate” thing a long time ago). In this missive, the Sandia Tea Party leadership makes mention (of course, with no links) to an article which was first purported to have a photograph of Ms. Obama holding hands with Bernadine Dohrn, wife of Bill Ayers. Readers may recall mention of Mr. Ayers – a leader (along with Ms. Dohrn) of the Weather Underground Organization, or Weathermen, an extreme radical left organization of the 1960s and 1970s – during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Mr. Obama was, at that time purported to be “palling around with terrorists.” The photograph in question (but not provided) is supposedly evidence linking the Obamas to Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers.
The Sandia Tea Party leadership corrects itself (after, apparently, having been corrected by somebody else), stating: “I have been corrected. The hand clutch is with Terresa Heinz Kerry.” Now, at that point, most people would have at least gotten suspicious and done a little research into what they were writing about – or at least changed the title, given that Ms. Obama had apparently not held hands with Ms. Dohrn. Instead, the Sandia Tea Party provides a link to a Freedomworks article (surprised?) titled “Charles Manson and Three Degrees of Separation” by Jack Lloyd Rowlinson. This is, according to the Sandia Tea Party, “an excellent account by Jack Lloyd Rowlinson, of politicians and their pussy-footing around with folks longing to overthrow our form of government using the most violent methods possible … warping our young people’s minds in progressive colleges and slaying our first level protectors at every opportunity.” Leaving aside the rather hyperbolic/paranoid tone of this particular piece of prose, the Freedomworks article demonstrates nothing described in the Sandia Tea Party article. It is a rather rambling discussion of Charles Manson’s purported pre-murder relationships and a short history of the Weather Underground’s activities, followed by an assertion that the Obamas maintain a relationship with Mr. Ayres and Ms. Dohrn “to this day.”
Now, we’re not going to waste a single word defending Mr. Ayers or Ms. Dohrn and their past activities. Not one. What are going to do is point out that the supposed relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers was subjected to rather intense scrutiny back in 2008, and the entire “controversy” was shown to be politically generated bunk. We refer not to the partisan blogsphere of which the author of the Sandia Tea Party is so clearly fond, but to articles by the master debunkers at Snopes.com (here) and the renowned Factcheck.org (here).
Now, we know that the falsehood factories may have lost a little of their production capacity in recent months, but this particular product didn’t gain much all that much traction the first time around and recycling it seems a bit odd, especially given that the recycling’s being done by FreedomWorks. We’re a little surprised to see FreedomWorks – with money from Koch Industries and other major corporate sponsors – wasting its resources on rehashing old and discredited attacks. With their resources, shouldn’t they be able to do better?
Unfortunately, we’re far less surprised to see the Sandia Tea Party picking this sort of thing up and passing it along.
A Rare Point Of Agreement – And The Usual Disagreement
by John Weckerle
We have, perhaps typically, kept silent on the issue of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman debacle. Looking over an April 10 article on the Sandia Tea Party site, however, we find ourselves in a rare state of agreement with a single point in the article, that the media – and, quite frankly, the blogsphere – have behaved digracefully in the coverage of this tragedy to date. In a rush to sensationalize the situation and exploit societal tensions, the media, as well as the multitude of pundicrats who are even less accountable than the “professional” journalists, portrayed the issue in such a manner as to incite anger and divisiveness. That people from all parts of the political spectrum reacted strongly is no surprise, although we should continue to hope that people on all sides of the issues will eventually adopt a reasonably skeptical attitude toward early media and blog coverage of – well – just about anything.
Now, we’ve listened to the uncut version of Mr. Zimmerman’s 911 call, and we’ve reviewed the list of prior 911 calls made by Mr. Zimmerman. What we do know is this: that Mr. Martin was walking around in a neighborhood in the rain, and that was considered “suspicious” by Mr. Zimmerman. At least to us, Mr. Zimmerman’s voice seemed very nervous on the call. The Sandia Tea Party’s official internet spokesman is correct that NBC edited the 911 tape in a way that might increase a listener’s perception of George Zimmerman as a racist – although he does fail to mention that Fox News and the New York Times, among many, had reported that an NBC producer had been fired over the incident three days before the Sandia Tea Party article was posted. From the 911 recording, we know that the dispatcher indicated that Mr. Zimmerman should not follow Mr. Martin, that Mr. Zimmerman agreed, and that Mr. Zimmerman then followed Mr. Martin. A confrontation of some sort ensured, and Mr. Martin lost his life. What we do not know, after trying to filter the facts out of the coverage, is why this happened. We have often made the case here that the best judgment comes of examination of facts, and given that actually very few of those have been, and continue to be, available to any of us, it remains premature to speculate on the degree to which race and racial issues contributed to the horrible events that led to the end of Mr. Martin’s life at the age of seventeen. We encourage our readers, and pretty much everybody else, to reserve judgment until such time as a reasonable set of facts is available.
What we would like our readers – and, again, pretty much everybody else – to consider is this: how have we, as a nation and a society, come to such a pass that the simple act of walking around in the rain (a long-time pastime of your editor’s, by the way) is “suspicious behavior?” What has brought us to the point where one person has the right to demand, perhaps even forcefully, an accounting from another citizen as to the nature of his business as he walks down the street? At what point did we become so suspicious of each other, so angry at each other, that such an event should come to pass? And let us not forget that a young man’s life is cut off, and a family is mourning, for reasons we cannot yet fathom. All we can be sure of is this: those reasons will never, ever be good.
Lest our readers think that we agree entirely with the Sandia Tea Party spokesman, we will point out that there is much in the article with which we disagree. Providing a litany of horrible crimes perpetrated by African American criminals as an unnecessary demonstration of media bias toward African Americans is nothing short of contemptible given the situation. These horrific cases have nothing in common with the Martin/Zimmerman case – but the fact that the Sandia Tea Party chooses to sign on to such a comparison speaks volumes regarding the character and biases of the organization, its members, and those who attend its events for the purpose of political expediency.
We’re getting tired of the nastiness. It’s time for those of us who are willing to work together to stop giving the fringe – on either side of the carpet – center stage. “Liberal” and “conservative” are not endpoints on a line; they are points on a continuum, and we think they are points that have more in common than many people realize, regardless of the irreconcilable differences that the people at the extreme ends of the bell curve may have with one another. As a nation, we’re not accomplishing much by yelling at each other. There will always be those among us who insist on the yelling, but as for the rest of us, we could do better with a serious talk here and there. Perhaps if we talked more and shouted less, we’d get closer to living in a nation in which we can all walk down the street, wearing whatever clothes we see fit, in whatever weather we see fit, and not be viewed with fear or suspicion. We’re a long way from that now, for a very complex set of reasons, but if we try, we can get there some day. Rather than focusing on our differences, and listening to those who seek to gain by driving us apart, perhaps we should consider working to come together and move forward.
Absent Is As Absent Does
by John Weckerle
We turn our attention today to a couple of articles from different sources regarding the upcoming Congressional elections here in New Mexico. One of these is a Sandia Tea Party article titled “Progressives Spreading Bull Butter Again — Why Not, It’s What They Do Well” by Edgewood Town Councilor and Sandia Tea Party official internet spokesman Chuck Ring, excoriating Eric Griego, (seeking election in the Democratic primary for Congressional District 1), for not affording the “organization” the “courtesy” of responding to an invitation to a “candidates forum” to be held by this august organization. The second is an article titled “Dems Skip Tea Party Candidate Forum” in the East Mountain Telegraph. Both articles note that Democratic candidates did not attend events hosted by the Sandia Tea Party.
Surprised, anyone?
Drill, Baby… Why?
by John Weckerle
With all the talk of pipelines and politics in the news, we found it interesting to read about a recent Associated Press (AP) article that examined 36 years of domestic oil production and gas prices. The AP article reports the conclusions of a statistical analysis that found no correlation between production and prices. According to the article, domestic oil prices are controlled by the global market and, given that U.S. exports account for a small amount of the global total, increasing our production would have little effect on pricing at the pump:
Unlike natural gas or electricity, the United States alone does not have the power to change the supply-and-demand equation in the world oil market, said Christopher Knittel, a professor of energy economics at MIT. American oil production is about 11 percent of the world’s output, so even if the U.S. were to increase its oil production by 50 percent — that is more than drilling in the Arctic, increased public-lands and offshore drilling, and the Canadian pipeline would provide — it would at most cut gas prices by 10 percent.
“There are not many markets where the United States can’t impose its will on market outcomes,” Knittel said. “This is one we can’t, and it’s hard for the average American to understand that and it’s easy for politicians to feed off that.”
Links to articles on the study:
For those who like data – the data behind the study:
Truly Theirs?
by John Weckerle
Hardly a day seems to go by on which one simply can’t turn on the radio or television news – or browse the internet – without one of the Republican presidential primary candidates accusing one of the others of making false statements. Frankly, with available time for radio listening at a premium, we’re getting a little tired of hearing the same thing over again. However, we have had our interest piqued by a particular question: just how often are these accusations of falsehood justified? How much can we trust these people?
To get a feel for the veracity of the primary candidates, we visited the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact.com, a project of the Tampa Bay Times. The site sorts through statements by various personalities and rates them as True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire. We looked into the files for each candidate and compiled it into a single table. What we noted immediately was that the raw data were less useful than we’d like, because the number of evaluated statements by each candidate varied substantially. To rectify that, we calculated the percentage of the total number of statements represented by the ranking in question for each candidate.
An Article About Articles
by John Weckerle
It’s been a while since we checked in on the folks at the Sandia Tea Party. In our last article on the subject, we examined two posts on the Sandia Tea Party site: one which we felt was a slap at minorities, and another on global climate change on which we thought it appropriate to clarify the source. Predictably or not, both articles vanished from the Sandia Tea Party site very quickly after our article was published.
Since then, we’ve been busy with other things, but have been keeping an eye on the site from time to time. There have been a few times where we’ve considered taking the author(s) to task on disinformation and other issues. It is rife with “the usual” – branding people with different opinions as “socialists” (even those who advocate sustainable development are now included in this ever-broadening category); suggesting that widely accepted scientific postulates are a) false, b) stupid, c) the result of dishonesty or myopia in the scientific community, or d) all of the above; and peppering all this with vague (or sometimes not-so-vague) scatological references that are certainly more enjoyable to write than they are to read.
We find ourselves currently amused by several posts on the site dealing with issues associated with carbon and anthropogenic climate change. The first of these consists of a doctored (we hope) photograph depicting a child urinating off a pier with the caption “After rising CO2 levels were blamed for increasing ocean acidity, a new theory emerges.” Apparently, this is supposed to suggest that it is foolish to believe that an increase in atmospheric CO2 lowers the pH of water.
More Of The Same
by John Weckerle
With a busy week behind us and this morning’s garden endeavors complete, and having been watching for a while, we decided to take a closer look in on the Sandia Tea Party site (www.sandiateaparty.com) and see what the newest local chapter was up to. We found ourselves neither greatly surprised nor disappointed: both in format and in content, we found exactly what we expected.
From the standpoint of format, the Sandia Tea Party site is a mess, suggesting that something has gone terribly wrong with the group’s WordPress software. This is just a little surprising, since a look through the articles on the site suggests that it is being managed by Edgewood Town Councilor Chuck Ring, who has been blogging for at least a couple of years. The effective formatting characteristic of WordPress is entirely lacking, and the site is all plain text. An anomalous swath of dark background nearly obscures one section of content.
As bad as the formatting is, the content does little to compensate. We examined two articles – one on the famed “Pigford” cases, and one on global warming – and that was enough. Let’s have a quick look at the two.
Oh Good, Another One
by John Weckerle
It was with some amusement that we read about the formation of a new local Tea Party chapter, the Sandia Tea Party, at Gadabout-Blogalot.com. We’re wondering whether there will be turf wars; there’s already an East Mountain Tea Party, and the Sandias are, after all, part of the East Mountains.
We decided to look the new group up, and found their web site. Some parts of the site are still apparently being worked out, but we were interested to see that the Contact Us page listed the president of the chapter: John Doe.
Really?
This is just what we needed – another shadowy organization run by anonymous “patriots” championing their version of “conservative” ideology. At what point did we arrive at the conclusion that there’s something wrong with having our names associated with that in which we believe? Whether we agree with the positions of an organization or not, we assign essentially zero credibility to the opinions and positions of those who speak in combative terms but lack the fortitude to put their names where their mouths are. We’ll be watching, and turning over rocks where we can find them.