According to Thursday's Free Press,  there has now been a 90% die-off of the cave-dwelling bat population in the northeast due to a still unidentified pathogen associated with the fungal condition known as "white nose syndrome."

Coupled with the massive  collapses occurring among bee colonies, this is not just a sad scenario, but an extremely alarming one with regard to our food security.   These creatures play a vital role in natural insect control for fruit and vegetable crops.  What is happening to our future chances for survival on a purely subsistence level while all of our energy and resources are directed toward "growing" an already enormous and dysfunctional consumer economy and waging an irrational war on the other side of the globe?  We have surrendered much of our investigative science capacity to corporate agendas, and what remains in the way of publicly funded efforts is  frequently targeted by the right, either as a waste of money or a moral menace.  Ignorance and hubris threaten our very survival, but as we are witnessing in Copenhagen, the industrialized giants seem to be locked in a paralytic state of denial.  This will end badly.

To:  California GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman

Don’t kick out the press — especially when you were the one that invited them.

– Gautam Dutta

Bored today. Road trip. Knew this would need some publicity. The only news coverage I saw offhand was WXYZ from Detroit, so here, for the rest of the state, are some shots from the "Save Our Schools Rally" today at the Capitol.

These guys are organized. Led by Tom White (he is the guy at the podium), the S.O.S. group is compromised of various school associations, and today they brought a group of students and parents from Farmington to lobby the legislators for school funding. Farmington, like everyone, is facing severe cuts, closing buildings, laying off over a hundred people.

S.O.S. has a professional web site. They have hats. They have buttons. They have t-shirts. They have signs. And they are serious. After a couple of speeches outside, complete with chants of "Do Your Job!" from the crowd, they all went inside to hunt down those lawmakers and give them what for. The Senate was already done for the day, a few folks from Appropriations were still there - so they went up to find them. Mike Bishop was around too, and they stuffed his meeting office with people - there is a picture of the overflow towards the end of the set. (I think the bald guy is Matt Marsden, but I'm not sure.) The House was still in session, but no Dillon to be found. At least they could go talk to their Rep.

So, next time some legislator uses the excuse "we need pressure" - know that they are being pressured. Seems these rallies are happening all the time. I've been to three now. It's fun to watch these kids swarm the halls with their signs, determined looks on their faces, they are going to find someone, darn it. The great thing about all these protests are that we are raising a new generation to be aware of the process - and to speak up for what they need.

You go, kids. Don't take "no" for an answer. Our state depends on it.

Even with one Travis County Democratic primary race race to be decided in an April run off, the campaigns for Austin ISD Board of Trustees and the Austin Community College Board of Trustees have already begun. The filing deadline was last Monday and Election Day is May 8.

Austin ISD Place 9 candidate Dianne Mendoza garnered a mention on the Austin Chronicle's Newsdesk blog for an endorsement controversy. Mendoza had touted the support of "former Austin Mayor" Ron Kessler and current Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez. A few problems: Kessler was never mayor and Martinez has not endorsed in the race.

Although the Chronicle describes Julie Cowan, one of the five candidates running along with Mendoza to replace Karen Dulaney Smith, as the "most seasoned in AISD politics," it is Tamela Barksdale who has picked up early support from Randi Shade, Will Wynn, and AFSCME's Jack Kirfman.

There are two other contested AISD races, in Place 6 between incumbent Lori Moya and Glen P. MayesII, and in Place 7 where Warren Faulkner will challenge incumbent Robrt Schneider. 

In ACC Place 6, Democratic and community activist Guadalupe Sosa will face Raymond Hartfield and Michael Perrine. Sosa is well-versed in ACC issues and should be the front runner here. She has also received the endorsement of State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez.

In Place 5, Fred McGhee, Davis Jones, David Reiter, and Victor Villarreal are all seeking the open seat vacated by Raul Alvarez. McGhee is well-known among local Democratic activists. Reiter, founder of the Phillips & Reiter law firm, brings business and legal experience to the race. 

I (we) am (are) even more of a threat when logged into Facebook. Click here.

This moment was captured the day after thanksgiving. We bought our flip cam two days before and were testing it out. We were on our way to the kitchen when Calen stopped us to ask for help washing his hands.

Yawn.  Yawn.  And yawn.

Now leaving aside FAUX's favorite pollster, it seems likely that the race hasn't moved much since earlier polling.  But there ain't no way I'm going to get worked up over Ras' margins.

Yet what has changed since then is that Hodes was out in front on Vermont Yankee and on health care reform.  The base is slowly getting fired up. Once HCR passes, we'll be even more fired up.  

Ted Costa, of People's Advocate, said he continues to believe in the thrust of the initiative but that the signature-gathering campaign has been "stolen" by big-money interests that have not identified themselves publicly.

"You ruin the whole organization when you go through this kind of muck," said Costa, who helped craft an early version of the initiative but was elbowed out of the drive in the jockeying to recruit backers....

Costa said the key issue to him is integrity -- the initiative he filed was shelved in favor of a virtually identical one backed by undisclosed interests that are "hiding" their identities and their contributions, he said.

"At a time when Californians really need honesty and integrity, there will be none," Costa said. (Capitol Alert 3/10/10)

Costa even said he'd sign a ballot argument against the initiative, showing the depth of his anger.

But should he really be all that surprised? The only people who would benefit from undoing AB 32 like this would be large corporations like Valero. Every other working Californian would be much worse off if the initiative passed, since their jobs and livelihoods would be in greater jeopardy thanks to unchecked global warming. And the state would lose the lead in innovating green jobs to places like China and Europe.

Maybe Costa was a true believer, but right-wingers should know how conservative politics works by now. Everything they do is bankrolled by the wealthy and large corporations, because that is who benefits from conservative politics. The notion that such politics are at all populist or benefit anyone not rich is a convenient lie, a smokescreen for the benefit of a credulous public.

Still, if Costa now wants to speak out against the initiative, I'm all in favor of it. The more the merrier!

An interesting piece of Wisconsin political history surfaced today, courtesy of the Democratic Party -- the audio of Tommy Thompson's "Stick it to 'em!" campaign to stick southeastern Wisconsin with the costs of Miller Park through a new tax.

You have to wonder how that would play in a Senate campaign if Thompson finally decides to run.

If Tommy were the GOP nominee for Senate and Scott Walker won the nomination for governor, they could do a tandem act, since both were up to their eyeballs in sticking it to the Milwaukee area on the stadium issue.

Walker, then a state legislator who hadn't yet seen the political value in posing as a tax cutter, enthusiastically voted for the new tax.

In fact, Walker not only voted for taxpayers to foot the bill for Miller Park, but consistently voted against amendments to the stadium bill that would have protected fans and taxpayers. He even voted against a proposal to give Wisconsin residents the first chance to buy the Brewers if the team went bankrupt or considered moving out of state.

Fortunately, the Selig family found an owner who could afford to own the team and was willing to keep them in Milwaukee. But only diamonds and nuclear waste last forever, so that vote may still come back to haunt Walker, who since 2002 has been sticking it to Milwaukee County residents as county exec.

For Thompson, the stadium deal was pretty much business as usual. He squeezed every campaign dollar he could out of everyone remotely interested in bidding on a contract to build the stadium -- just like he did earlier with anyone interested in trying to get a dog track license.

And what prompted all of these fond memories today? A report that the stadium sales tax will continue to be collected at least two years longer than expected, until 2016 or 2018.

Will it end up never going away, like many states with toll charges that were supposed to disappear after the toll roads were paid for?

If nothing else, it's a reminder that Tommy was a big spender and taxer in his day, which almost everyone except Tommy and a few cronies and special interests think is long past.

...and I'll put a few more for those who enjoy biting tinfoil on the jump.
Add your own if you're so inclined.  
....and we fell down laughing in the wet grass!

I've heard it all before.

Bring me Southern kisses from your room.

Same song, only different. And first....amirite?

Don't you remember? You told me you loved me, baby....

Just groove.....

I'm just about at the end of my rope.

Be you child or grain of sand, words of wisdom: "YES I CAN."

I used to roll her in the clover. Thank God those days are over.

And all the girls from there to Austin,
Were slippin' away from home and puttin' jewelery in hock

"Peace On Earth" was all it said.

And finally...

if our backs should be against the wall, we'll be together, you and I......

You may now return to the regularly scheduled operation of your functioning democracy.

AP - President Barack Obama denounced waste, inefficiency and downright fraud in the government's health care system on Wednesday as he sought to rally public support for his revamped overhaul plan. "Improper payments cost taxpayers almost $100 billion last year alone," Obama said at a rally in this St. Louis suburb.

Here's another follow up to my posts yesterday and Monday on Saturday's DFA-DFNM debate for Democratic lieutenant governor candidates at UNM Law School.

Below are videos of Rep. Joe Campos, Brian Colon, Sen. Linda Lopez, Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino and Lawrence Rael answering a question from the audience about restoring honesty and openness to government.

Sen. Linda Lopez (L); Rep. Joe Campos (R)

Brian Colon (L); Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino (R)

Lawrence Rael

Most homeowners in the U.S. would come out ahead if they invested in energy efficiency improvements—new insulation, sealed windows, more efficient boilers, and the like. So why don’t they do it? Simple: the upfront costs are steep and the paybacks can take a long time. Many homeowners don’t have access to the capital to cover the costs, or they worry that they will move before the the costs are repaid, thus leaving subsequent owners to reap gains they didn’t pay for.

Given the substantial public good served by having these retrofits done—they save consumers money, create jobs, and reduce carbon pollution—how can public policy encourage them?

If you can come up with half the upfront cost, you can use the “Cash for Caulkers” (i.e., Home Star) program that’s going to be passed into law soon. Or if you live in a town or city that can afford one, you can take advantage of a PACE program, which offers loans that cover the initial costs and are paid back over time from energy savings.

Who does that leave out? Who doesn’t have upfront capital and doesn’t live in a city with money to spend on PACE? You guessed it: rural homeowners.

This matters for several reasons. First off, rural homes—over 20 percent of which are manufactured homes—are substantially less efficient than their urban and suburban counterparts. That’s why, even though their homes are generally smaller and their electricity is generally cheaper, the average rural household pays $200-$400 more a year on energy bills than comparable urban households. And given that they make roughly $10,000 less per year, that’s not chump change.

Second, rural Americans are precisely the ones most politically hostile to climate action, which they see as a liberal political program that primarily benefits cities and coastal elites. Direct energy benefits to rural homeowners could help change the political landscape and ease further action.

Enter Third Way, which today released a fantastically clever idea for addressing this problem. You can read the details here, but in brief, it would effectively extend a PACE-like program to rural homeowners. Rather than being administered by cities, though, it would be run by utilities, specifically the customer-owned utility co-ops that serve rural areas. The co-ops would borrow money from the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service and then offer customers the option of having a qualified contractor come out, do an energy assessment, and install efficiency improvements. This would be paid for by a low-interest (no more than 3 percent) loan, paid back over ten years by a small surcharge on utility bills. The loan is attached to property taxes, so it would transfer with ownership. It’s painless, risk-free, and accessible to all homeowners, just like PACE in cities.

The cost?

According to USDA, the total program cost will be $995 million to issue $4.9 billion in zero-interest loans. That includes $755 million in loan subsidy costs, $200 million for a start-up grant fund, and $40 million for program overhead.

That’s beans!

The benefits?

A loan volume of $5.6 billion dollars at these rates would spur the weatherization of up to 1.6 million rural homes in 47 states over the next ten years, eliminating the need for new generating capacity to power 625,000 homes in coal-dependent areas and creating 34,000 new jobs by 2020, including 20,000 new jobs created by the end of 2011.

Jobs, consumer relief, and carbon pollution reduction—win win win. Not too shabby.

The idea was introduced as legislation today, as the Rural Energy Savings Program. In the Senate the bill is co-sponsored by Sens Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D), and Michael Bennett (D-Colo.). A counterpart was introduced in the House by Reps James Clyburn (D-S.C), Tom Perriello (D-Va.), Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), and John Spratt (D-S.C.).

Bipartisan and bicameral! How many legislative ideas can boast those qualities these days? Again: not too shabby.

Said
Graham: “I just thought it was a marvelous idea. This is great
policy when you can take a relatively small amount of federal dollars,
invest it in the economy and empower people to help themselves.” More on the politics of this in a subsequent post.

Related Links:

Using behavioral science to make smarter energy policy

Challenging conventional wisdom on renewable energy’s limits

China’s changing energy economy