I had the opportunity several weeks ago to listen to an ostensibly “fair and balanced” presentation about global warming. They even showed a major portion of “An Inconvenient Truth”. It was, however, followed by “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, a British shockumentary that contends that dramatic global climate change is a scam and has several allegedly important scientists backing up it’s claims.

The whole thing was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, plus a plethora of local Republican legislators, and featured James M. Taylor, the Institute’s featured writer on environmental matters, as host and chief naysayer. Mr. Taylor came armed with lots of “facts” that asserted that: 1. The earth is not warming and is in a natural cycle of climate fluctuation, probably going colder than warmer. 2. If, indeed, the planet is warming it is definitely not anthropogenic (caused by man). Notwithstanding that these are mutually exclusive statements this scenario was interesting to me in that the Heartland Institute is considered a free market think tank. Here is their mission statement, quoted from their website.

” Heartland’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do better than government bureaucracies.”

Reading through this mission statement it is clear, to me at least, that the Heartland Institute is by no means a free-market advocate and is instead a sock puppet for preserving the status quo in major corporate interests and promoting new age conservative ideals. All of their stated missions have more to do with maximizing corporate profits and undermining government than simply advocating for free markets. They reveal a worship of the University of Chicago School of Economics championed by Milton Friedman. According to Friedman the free market is better than government in providing public services. In that sense the Heartland Institute is a free market advocate. However, new age conservative politicians have co-opted Friedman style economics to suit their own global domination politics. To them Friedman’s economics means that only profit is moral and that government is always bad. It is these folk who use the Heartland Institute to forward their own purposes.

One must remember that Freidman was also a strong social libertarian and had an extremely narrow view of government intervention in people’s lives. This viewpoint informed his economics and has led new age conservatives to the distorted contention that all that is needed to save the world is to give all the money to private corporate interests. This is what the Heartland Institute is really advocating. If they were truly champions of the free market they would recognize the solid science behind global warming and favor economic development of alternative energy sources and means of delivery as the natural shift in paradigms that they are, and allow the market to adjust as is normal.

Instead they advocate for the obfuscating statement “market based approaches to environmental protection”. According to the film “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and Mr. Taylor’s rhetoric this simply means continued use of carbon based fuels for energy. Their denial of global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific information is not a call for a free market solution but support for an old paradigm in the face of a natural switch to a new one. By denying that global warming exists they claim that carbon based fuels are cheaper and therefore better than wind, solar, safe hydroelectric and other alternative fuels. This position could only arise from abject monetary support from the oil and coal industries and does not represent the spirit of the supposed mission of the Heartland Institute at all.

It is a sad world where anyone with enough money can buy scientific support for their agendas. This means anyone, on either ends of the various political spectrums, can buy junk science and claim anything. As a result science is being cheapened as we move away from a rational world into one where things are true simply because someone says so.

Would that there were a way to assure that those hard working, long suffering, non-whining political activists, the ones who get everything done without complaining or expecting any great reward, could be the very same delegates who get to choose party nominees and conduct other party business at the state conventions held every two years. Alas, it would be extremely difficult to insure that these folks, the ones who know how to get things done, were elected to those august positions. The system is set up to promote democracy, which is a different thing altogether from efficiency.

The way the DFL system works (I have no desire to spend much time finding out how the Republican system works) delegates move forward either by being elected by vote of delegates present at senate district or county unit conventions (from those elected at precinct caucuses) or by an enigmatic system known as walking sub-caucuses, a system I will not attempt to describe, it being so esoteric as to confuse even the most knowledgeable politico. Suffice it to say that in either case if one is a comfortable, polished public speaker able to persuade one has a better chance of being elected. Unfortunately not all knowledgeable, dedicated activists have this requisite skill. Many folks who know what is going on with the party and in their own communities, and would make excellent delegates, are averse to tooting their own horn in public. It is not in their natures to gloat over their accomplishments.

The result of these truths is, although meant to increase democratic participation, the system often elects delegates who simply want to be in the spotlight for that one weekend every two years the party meets to convene. They hang out, go to the parties, feel important when the candidates want to personally talk to them, do some voting and then disappear into the crowd, not to be seen again until the next time delegates are selected at the precinct caucuses, starting the selection process for another election cycle’s convention.

Try as I might I have yet to figure out a way this peculiar type of perversion can be overcome without also ruining the democratic process. Perhaps we will just have to get used to having democracy run by those who know how to worm their way into the photo ops without ever doing any appreciable work. Wait, aren’t we already governed by professional election winners instead of real statesmen. Maybe if we could see past how well a person looks in a suit or how effectively they can sell themselves we might be able to elect delegates and subsequently nominate and elect candidates who are willing to roll up their sleeves and get a little dirty for the common good.

Heaven forbid we elect citizen/statesmen/women who actually remember how to manifest good old American know how.

One thing that conservative politicians tend to do that fascinates me is their proclivity to support relatively meaningless legislation in a blatant attempt to foster the good graces of the working class. They want to show the little guy that they are on his side but cannot bring themselves to support something that would actually help them, like single payer health care or publicly financed elections, but rather find these obscure, ostensibly populist issues to champion instead. Heaven forbid they might do something that would really mean something for the people.

One shining example of this practice is Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) recent sponsorship of a bill that would roll back the current bill that would phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of the more energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs for residential and commercial use. As is most often the case with these left field issues there is a modicum of truth to her contention that the mercury content of the fluorescent bulbs poses a modest health and environmental risk. Rep. Bachmann argues that folks should have the right to choose what bulbs they use and the government should not be sticking it’s ugly hand into their utility closets and bulb sockets. See, I am standing up for your right to do whatever you damn well please regardless of it’s wisdom.

When properly disposed of, the fluorescent bulbs pose little danger to anyone and the reduction of energy used by the bulbs themselves means a reduction in the amount of coal used to create that energy, which means a concurrent reduction in the measurable amounts of mercury released directly into the atmosphere by that coal burning process. Rep. Bachmann didn’t happen to mention that in her statement. Perhaps she thought it would confuse those good folk who don’t want Washington telling them what damn light bulbs to use.

A second example of this creative means of bonding with the working class was then Minnesota State Senator, Dave Kleis’ (R-MN) advocacy of making Texas Hold’um poker tournaments legal in Minnesota bars and service organization’s clubhouses. Another one of those “common sense” bills that appealed to the breakfast cafe intelligentsia of the heartland. Hell, no one is getting hurt by this friendly gambling. Why can’t the boys get together and pound a few beers and have some fun. See, I care about you guys. Why should the state tell you how to have fun. Kleis was so passionate about the issue he got a major New York newspaper to write a front page article about it.

Why did we send him to St. Paul anyway? Was it perhaps to strive to work together with other representatives from around the state to make day to day life better for hard working Central Minnesotans? I thought it was. I guess he was scared to sponsor any bills that made a real difference.

There are plenty more examples out there of this type of false populism from conservatives who, if they follow the party line, (and they ALL follow the party line) rarely if ever do anything that really helps the working class. They dream up these mostly meaningless issues to forward, like knights in shining armor, appearing to be caring, concerned public servants who work hard to reverse injustice but are actually working PR scams.

Instead of working for meaningful health care reform we get light bulb wars and instead of proper state funding of education we get good old boy poker night. The self promotion of these weak attempts to help the people is shameless. Did all of these politicians grow up admiring the circus.

Gee those elephants look cute in those outfits.

The powers that be in the media would have you believe that a protracted “struggle” for the Democratic nomination between the two remaining candidates will bitterly divide the Democratic party and destroy their chances of winning in November. It is my estimation that this is simply a fabrication dreamed up by media heads to keep their coverage of the “monumental struggle” in the forefront of the news.

To be frank, I feel that a continued, contested race for the Democratic nomination only serves to help the Dems, through the effect of keeping the race on the front burner of American media expression. It is Senator McCain who is and will continue to struggle to get face time on the news as long as there is a contested race for Democrats. In this sense the race will have the exact opposite effect that the pundits proclaim. The mistake they make is in underestimating the very lack of long term memory that they have fomented in the public themselves, in order to continue to sell sensationalized infotainment instead of focusing on hard news. They are saying (and trying to get us to believe) that a protracted Democratic race will divide the party irreparably, opening the door for a McCain victory. They do this because motion toward a victory for one candidate or another serves their needs. It will make McCain relevant again. A continued race only dilutes the kind of coverage they can offer. After all, you can only spin the same stuff so far before America realizes it is bored. The race itself, however, will offer real intrigue and not the fake kind dreamed up by media types desperate for ratings

People have such a short attention span that they will soon forget any animosity between Senators Clinton and Obama. Once a candidate is chosen Democrats will unite once again against the common issues of continued waging of an Iraq war that grows more unpopular daily, plus the disastrous effects of stone age Republican economic policy. The “bitter struggle” will be forgotten in two weeks. In the meantime Senator McCain will barely be able to get arrested on TV until after the Democrat’s convention.

A brokered convention could be the best things American Democrats have ever experienced. It will create a sense of drama that cannot be bought at any price and will thrust the eventual Democratic winner into a limelight they will not relinquish. America has not had a brokered convention for decades. Most Americans have never experienced the thrill of ballot after ballot, bottoms planted firmly on the edge of their seats. It is almost as dramatic as the NCAA basketball “March Madness”. We deserve an opportunity to see American democracy at it’s contentious best, factions fighting desperately for victory. The Democratic Party can give us this thrill, and as a nation of thrill seekers reacts the Republicans may not be able to match it, no matter how Machiavellian they are able to act.

I’m not sure if I am appalled or amused, but I certainly took notice of the abrupt introduction of the “fait accompli” guilt by association attack on Barack Obama, which was carefully crafted by Fox Infotainment. As it appears to me, Eliot Spitzer did us all a service by falling on his sword (or was that someone else falling on his sword) so dramatically. In order to get the attacks on the “Ultra Liberal Democrats” back onto the front burner they decided to trot out one of their trump cards. My guess is that if the ex-governor had not screwed up so ignominiously the Fox brain trust would have been able to hold off until later in the game with their footage of Pastor Wright and subsequent lobbing of heavy artillery.

I mean, really, Spitzer had bought us a good 48 hours of respite from the incessant over-analysis of the presidential race, and Fox would have none of it. In their blood lust for opportunities to make Democrats look ridiculous I believe the media manipulators at Fox mistimed their assault on Obama. By tax day it will be a non issue. The media can only support a major issue for several weeks at best. This would have been much more effective released in October. Perhaps Fox got wind that someone else was going public with this stuff and would not have their own poison parade rained upon. In reality we should be thankful, because the scenario has provided America with a real teachable moment, something the Obama campaign seized upon by cleverly, dramatically, and inspirationally crafting his “A More Perfect Union” speech.

Could this speech be the proverbial sliver lining in the cloud of caustic and acerbic bile that is major media coverage of our impending presidential election? Could Hannity and the like be hoist on their own rapier sharp petards? As I have stated, it is difficult in today’s world to manifest truth for more than several weeks. Untruths tend to last a little longer. Obama’s words are worthy of the ages. If the moving, meaningful words of this great orator become yet another sound bite, a mere bookend for bracketology, then I suppose we will deserve the missed opportunity that diminishment will represent. Unfortunately my sense is that this speech will become another in a long series of unfulfilled insights offered freely to America by the more visionary of her sons and daughters. As much as those words pain me I hope to God they someday will no longer be true. Obama may not be the person to become our next president but he has much to teach us.