Oil companies continue to subvert climate change efforts

A Scientific American article, Subverting Climate Science in the Classroom, comments:

In a drab hearing room in Austin, Tex., members of the State Board of Education, seated at small desks arranged in a broad, socially distanced circle, debated whether eighth grade science students should be required to “describe efforts to mitigate climate change.” One board member, a longtime public school science teacher, argued in favor of the proposed new requirement. Another, an in-house attorney for Shell Oil Company, argued to kill it.

The attorney won. In the end, the board voted to require that eighth grade science students “describe the carbon cycle” instead.

Over the past two years school board meetings around the country have erupted into shout fests over face masks, reading lists and whether to ban education about structural racism in classrooms. In Texas, a quieter political agenda played out during the lightly attended process to set science education standards—guidelines for what students should learn in each subject and grade level. For the first time, the state board considered requiring that students learn something about human-caused climate change. That requirement came under tense dispute between industry representatives interested in encouraging positive goodwill about fossil fuels and education advocates who think students should learn the science underlying the climate crisis unfolding around them.

In 2020 two major education advocacy groups—the National Center for Science Education and the Texas Freedom Network—hired experts to grade the science standards of all 50 states and Washington, D.C., based on how they covered the climate crisis. Thirty states and D.C. made As or Bs. Texas was one of six states that made an F. But because Texas is one of the largest textbook purchasers in the nation—and because its elected 15-member State Board of Education has a history of applying a conservative political lens to those textbooks—publishers pay close attention to Texas standards as they create materials they then sell to schools across America. As a former science textbook editor once told me, “I never heard anyone explicitly say, ‘We can't talk about environmentalism because of Texas.’ But we all kind of knew. Everybody kind of knows.” In this way, the proceedings in an Austin boardroom influence what millions of children nationwide are taught. 

And yet, as I learned when I watched 40 hours of live and archived board hearings, reviewed scores of public records and interviewed 15 people involved in the standard-setting process, members of the fossil-fuel industry participated in each stage of the Texas science standards adoption process, working to influence what children learn in the industry's favor. Texas education officials convened teams of volunteers to rewrite the existing standards, and industry members volunteered for those writing teams and shaped the language around energy and climate. Industry members rallied to testify each time proposals to revise standards got a public hearing. When the board considered the rewritten standards for final approval, the industry appealed to members to advance their favored amendments, ensuring that the seemingly local drama in Austin will have outsized consequences.

Right, they all knew. Textbook publishers all knew. The oil companies deny it. But they know all about their own the lies of omission and subversion tactics, plausible deniability be damned. So do Republican politicians, their wealthy donors and the neo-fascist propaganda Leviathan, e.g., Faux News. 

The public doesn't know it. Our children don't know it. They know, we don't. 

Mushrooms: 

Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em bullshit

Profits from pollution go to the elites at the top, including textbook publishers, while damage caused by lies, ignorance, corruption and subversion flows directly to (i) democracy and transparency, (ii) respect for inconvenient truth, (iii) the environment, and (iv) the public interest. That's just what the marriage of laissez-faire capitalism with Republican Party neo-fascism looks like. It was made in hell and it operates from there with all the morality and social conscience that hell affords, i.e., essentially none at all.

A rant about America's subverted mainstream media (MSM)

Over the last 6 years or so, what appears to be a lethal flaw in the MSM has come into personal view. Other observers saw it before and voiced the concern. 

Specifically, the MSM almost always treats corporate, religious and Republican Party lies, subversion, slanders, corruption and anti-democratic behaviors as just mere conservative politics or just expressing a conservative point of view. This article is a perfect example of excusing morally and socially inexcusable bad behavior with opiates like "its elected 15-member State Board of Education has a history of applying a conservative political lens to those textbooks."

A conservative lens my ass. It is undeniable subversion and corruption of public education for the benefit of everyone who privatizes and trickles up profits from pollution, while they gleefully socialize all the harm. To do that, neo-fascists and the corrupt capitalists have to keep us mushrooms as ignorant and disinformed as they possibly can. If the author of this article would have written something like "its elected 15-member State Board of Education has a history of applying subversion and a corrupt, radical conservative (or neo-fascist) political lens to those textbooks," that would have been accurate. 

This rant is not just about how the MSM deals with climate change. In recent days, the same professional malpractice by the MSM hit a crescendo. MSM pablum and pap was flowing thick and constant in the wake of the Republican Christian nationalist Supreme Court decisions to (1) overturn Roe v. Wade, and (2) to give religious fanatics massive access to tax dollars. Christian nationalists who run the private religious schools are now taxpayer funded. Those religious schools openly discriminate against non-believers, the LGBQT community and anyone else their vengeful, bigoted God deems unworthy and in need of discrimination and oppression. 

Now Christian nationalists have finally forced us idiot taxpayers to pay for their fortresses of hate they call schools. Those fortresses not only subvert children's education, e.g., downplaying climate change, but they also openly oppose civil liberties for all except themselves. This is not just about religious freedom, it is about anti-democratic subversion, lies, corruption and greed. 

In recent months this tendency to soften the reality of what American political and religious and conservatism has become has been been constant. On NPR, grotesque MSM deference to concepts like corruption, subversion, conservatism and religious freedom was horrendous. It raises a question, why support something that is too much in opposition to democracy, truth, civil liberties, etc.? I see the same problem with the New York Times and Washington Post. They just don't get it. 

Q: Does this rant articulate a reality that is as important and pervasive in the MSM as portrayed here, or is that perception more illusion than real? Or, should the MSM maintain respect for subversion, anti-democratic behaviors and corruption for some reason(s), e.g., to maintain (arguably non-existent) credibility with radical right Republicans, or to not offend advertisers, etc.?

What good is it?

In response to the Roe overturn yesterday, a young lady on Twitter asked an interesting question that has stuck with me:

“Has anything good ever come out of Christianity?”

A simple, out of the mouths of babes, kind of question.  I have to admit, I’m hard pressed to think of anything.  Maybe feelings of solace, for those who feel otherwise hopeless in this life, and think they have nowhere else to turn??  But other than such mental comfort, what real good has Christianity ever produced?  On the contrary, it’s showcased a lot of not-so-good role modeling.

If you stand back and look at it, the religion has remarkably survived, even thrived, on hearsay (word of mouth) and rather flimsy circumstantial evidence.  Objectively, there is no direct evidence of any of its claims, including that of the rather bipolar God it portrays.

To me, the whole biblical narrative is rather depressing.  Jesus being treated really badly by his contemporaries.  Stories of rape (which is, btw, how Jesus’s life got started) and other sexual perversions.  Threats of Hell for non-believers and what it takes to self-preserve (attain Heaven); self-preservation being a basal instinct.  Seriously, what is there to like about the religion?  Seems kinda useless to me, but… (yes, that’s just me).

Here's the question: Can you think of anything good that has ever come out of Christianity?  I’m listening.

Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court has just published its decision to strike down the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. NBC News writes:

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion in a 6-3 vote, a momentous break from a half century of rulings on one of the nation’s most controversial issues. About half the states have already indicated they would move to ban the procedure.

The neo-fascist Republican plan to make America Christian Sharia again is well underway. Red states are going to get rid of abortion, make it a felony and then pass laws to get rid of birth control. Christian nationalists are rejoicing. The rest of us mourn the needless, unjustifiable loss of an important civil liberty.

You're screwed

Regarding the Supreme Court decision to ban gun regulations

The Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a broad right to carry guns in public. That eliminates the New York law. The NRA and gun manufacturers will now file more to obliterate more state and federal gun control laws. California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, where about a quarter of all Americans live will be forced to rewrite their laws.

The New York Times writes: 

The 6-to-3 decision again illustrated the power of the six conservative justices, all of whom voted to strike down the New York law, in setting the national agenda on social issues. The court’s three liberal members dissented.

The Second Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” States can continue to prohibit guns in some locations like schools and government buildings, Justice Thomas wrote, but the ruling left open where exactly such bans might be allowed.  

The share prices of firearms manufacturers rose on Wall Street, with Smith & Wesson climbing more than 9 percent.  

The majority opinion announced a general standard by which courts must now judge restrictions on gun rights, one that relies on historical assessments: “The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Commentators on NPR noted yesterday that the majority decision completely ignored the most inconvenient aspects of America's historical tradition of firearm regulation. This is an example of the now standard neo-fascist Republican tactic of ignoring, denying, distorting or downplaying inconvenient fact, truth and sound reasoning. That is a necessary element of the rigid ideologue's mindset. Convenient or not, facts and logic do not care about any ideology, political, religious or otherwise. But ideologues care so much that they easily rationalize the inconvenient into something easily swept aside.

In dissent, Breyer argued that “the court’s near-exclusive reliance on history is not only unnecessary, it is deeply impractical. It imposes a task on the lower courts that judges cannot easily accomplish.” And that impracticality is exactly what the neo-fascist Republican majority wanted. This highlights a critically important aspect of the radical right legal strategy to limit the scope of government regulation. By citing vague "principles" such as historical tradition, the radicals leave themselves plenty of room to expand the reach of their own vague ruling. 

The day is coming when most folks will be carrying a loaded gun and gun violence will increase. Then the Republicans will blame the Democrats and liberals for the violence. In response, who knows what the Democrats and liberals might do, if anything. One thing is sure, the executives at Smith & Wesson are breaking out the champagne while they watch the value of their stock rise along with the body count. And, those Republican politicians who take gun money are assured of a continuous flow of cash for service for decades to come.

Regarding the US military budget & federal debt

Common Dreams writes:

'Unconscionable': House Committee Adds $37 Billion 

to Biden's $813 Billion Military Budget

The proposed increase costs 10 times more than preserving the free school lunch program that Congress is allowing to expire "because it's 'too expensive,'" Public Citizen noted.

The Biden administration's March request for $813 billion in military spending for Fiscal Year 2023 already marked a $31 billion increase over the current, historically large sum of $782 billion.

During its markup of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the House Armed Services Committee approved by a 42-17 margin Rep. Jared Golden's (D-Maine) amendment to boost the topline budget by $37 billion.

One can reasonably imagine that the extra $37 billion is for Ukraine and the cost will be added to the federal debt. Things like this are what make the Democrats look too much like the Republicans for my taste. 

We get endless military spending by both parties with vast debt but Republican animosity toward domestic spending and taxes. Complaints always come from Republicans about debt to block domestic spending but never military spending. In large part, our out of control situation reflects the success of the Republican Starve the Beast strategy. Sooner or later the federal debt will come crashing down and most average Americans will experience great pain and suffering.

Wikipedia: Starving the beast is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending. The term "the beast", in this context, refers to the United States Federal Government and the programs it funds, using mainly American taxpayer dollars, particularly social programs such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

On the books debt = a shockingly unmanageable ~$30 trillion

That plus off the books debt = ~$100 trillion

American politics: An escape from freedom and a return to the Dark Ages

Freedom is frightening -- Why?

The fall of reality and enlightenment rationality

to dark ages emotion, bias, and moral cowardice

By now it is clear and undeniable that the GOP stands firmly opposed to democracy, free elections, secularism, pluralism, regulations on businesses and all inconvenient fact, truth and sound reasoning (IFTSR). IFTSR no longer matter. What feels good and self-affirming matters. That sentiment of going with your guts, emotions, biases, intuitions and tribe-cult over IFTSR seems to be something that increasing numbers of Republicans are willing to say in public. 

This mass phenomenon of mental retreat to pre-Enlightenment dark ages seems to be real, not a mirage. It came up when Tucker Carlson admitted in court under oath that he was a liar and no one should believe him. The judge agreed that sane people would not believe the things he said. Despite that public admission, there was no blowback or damage to Carlson's career. His audience does not care about IFTSR. They need to feel good about themselves. They consciously know or unconsciously sense that IFTSR clearly stands against them. They need to find a way to make the cognitive dissonance that IFTSR causes go away. 

So why bother with any concern about IFTSR? Why not just admit that feeling good about one's self is more important than the painful cognitive dissonance? Facing and accepting IFTSR takes moral courage. Believing in comforting lies, falsehoods and crackpot motivated reasoning (LFCMR) is far more pleasant and simple. Moral cowardice feels soooo good. And, it's soooo easy and the smug self-righteousness that comes with good feelings is a blast. So why not just give in and enjoy the fantasy ride?

Moral authority for believing LFCMR comes the the highest political, religious and social authority among the elites that control the Republican Party and its propaganda Leviathan. Those elites are ruthless, professional liars, emotional manipulators and radical crackpots. They have less than no concern for IFTSR. They hate it, deny it, distort it and constantly attack it. Well, if the elites that run your cult or tribe rely heavily on LFCMR, then why not accept it as some form of truth? 

LFCMR certainly feels right, so maybe it is right, IFTSR be damned. 

In my opinion, that "logic" constitutes a basis to mostly understand what most rank and file Republicans are thinking and feeling as they continue to support what is now known to be gigantic lies and even the violent 1/6 coup attempt the GOP leadership downplays as "legitimate political discourse." The elites know exactly what they are doing and what they want, power and wealth. Democracy and free elections stand in the way of power and wealth, so those are under direct attack. 

Really? Come on, this can't be possible!

"Escape From Freedom is an analysis of the phenomenon of man's anxiety engendered by the breakdown of the Medieval World in which, in spite of many dangers, he felt himself secure and safe. .... modern man is still anxious and tempted to surrender his freedoms to dictators of all kinds, or to lose it by transforming himself into a small cog in the machine, well fed and well clothed, yet not a free man but an automaton. .... There can be no doubt that in this last quarter of a century the reasons for man's fear of freedom, for his anxiety and willingness to become an automaton, have not only continued but have greatly increased." -- Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom, 1941

There is precedent for a mass public mental retreat from political and social IFTSR into political and social LFCMR. It was described by psychiatrist Erich Fromm in his 1941 masterpiece on this issue, Escape From Freedom (book review here). Fromm argued that many people are alienated and overwhelmed by complex modern societies. There is just too much complexity, ambiguity and IFTSR in democracy, tolerance and pluralism. The human mind did not 

evolve the mental capacity to deal calmly and rationally with all of this. 

“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.” -- Social scientists Chris Achen and Larry Bartels, Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, 2016 (book review here)  

Matters are made much worse when the public is constantly bombarded with divisive, confusing, distracting and fear-fomenting LFCMR by social, religious and political leaders. For example, consider Faux News and Tucker Carlson's self-professed tactic of lying, deceiving and dividing society for his livelihood. Consider the torrent of gigantic pro-authoritarian, anti-democracy lies and slanders the ex-president constantly spews. Deceptive, manipulative LFCMR propaganda and tactics offer millions of uncomfortable, frightened Americans the escape from freedom, rationality and cognitive dissonance they desperately seek. They are seeking peace and reassurance from people and interests who intend to deliver neither.

Q: Is it likely that as time passes, most Republicans will openly retreat from cold reality and escape to comforting authoritarian LFCMR, or has that already happened?