Open Left - Heritage Foundation

Heritage Foundation whines, "It all started when he hit me back!"

Paul Rosenberg — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:30:00 GMT

Conservatives never take responsibility for anything: slavery, segregation, racism, coddling Hitler, Central American death squads, pollution, mass incarceration, three decades of budget-busting deficits, 9/11, Katrina, the Iraq War, the Wall Street meltdown & the Great Recession--the list goes on and on. So why would their reaction to the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords be any different? And it's not, as the Heritage Foundation whines, "It all started when he hit me back!"

Libel is No Path to a Civil Society
All of us at The Heritage Foundation were profoundly saddened by the tragedy that occurred this past Saturday morning in Tucson, Arizona. We mourn all of those who lost their lives and are praying for a full recovery by all of the surviving victims. As Speaker John Boehner said Saturday, "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve."
Unfortunately, some have chosen to use this tragedy for political gain. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the Democrat who refused to enforce SB 1070, told FOX News' Megyn Kelly this weekend that the shooting was caused by an "atmosphere" created when "one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this country better. " In case there is any doubt in your mind who Sheriff Dupnik was talking about, one veteran Democratic operative, who, like Sheriff Dupnik, blamed overheated rhetoric for the shooting, told Politico that President Barack Obama should "deftly pin this on the tea partiers."
Pressed by Kelly to identify ANY evidence linking the shooter to the tea party, Sheriff Dupnik admitted he had zero: "That is my opinion. Period."

Of course, Dupnik's original claim wasn't that Loughner was a Tea Party member, but that the same incendiary rightwing rhetoric used to fire up the Tea Party--some of which directly targetted Giffords, who had been the target of violence in the past--also played a role in inspiring and directing Loughner's murderous rage. So, the Heritage Foundation is lying, as usual. But that's just the starter lie. The hum-dinger is here:

Americans like Sheriff Dupnik, who claim that they are interested in creating a more civil discourse, ought to think long and hard about pointing their fingers at other peoples' words before making completely unsubstantiated accusations. Those who blame the rhetoric of their political opponents for these heinous crimes, when no such evidence exists, only further coarsen our civil discourse.

Why, heavens! We'd hate to see anyone coarsen a civil discourse characterized by "death panels", "Second Amendment remedies," nooses, swastikas, spitting on congressmen and the like. This is the sort of "civil discourse" the Heritage Foundation wishes to preserve? Where, exactly has Heritage been all these years?

Here's a hint: In the 1990s, Heritage fought tooth and nail against the Democrats' attempt to pass comprehensive health care. Before conservatives siezed on the idea of all-out obstruction, Heritage crafted a conservative alternative. Just over a decade later, their plan became the basis for "RomneyCare" passed in Massachussettes, and a couple of years after that, it became the basis for ObamaCare as well. But in the battle over ObamaCare, Heritage was vehemently opposed to its own abandoned brainchild, and had no problem at all allying with other conservatives who attacked ObamaCare for its non-existent "Death Panels" (actually reimbursements for end-of-life counseling sessions, originally a GOP amendment).

Indeed, the first week of August, as Tea Party mobs raged in what we now know were orchestrated, pre-planned disruptions of townhall meetings (not good-faith participation), which used the mythical, non-existent "death panels" as their center-piece, perhaps the Heritage Foundation's highest-profile op-ed writer, Thomas Sowell, wrote an op-ed, "Utopia Versus Freedom," that didn't use the exact phrase, but expressed the same lie:

do not be surprised when life-and-death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands - and out of the hands of your doctor - and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.

No single political battle was more politically beneficial for conservatives, more mendacious, more incendiary, and more directly responsible for inciting threatening words and actions than the battle over healthcare reform last year. And if Heritage had had any moral and intellectual integrity, it would have stood with Barack Obama, who was, after all, fighting for Heritage's own brainchild. Go ahead, laugh. I agree, it's ludicrous idea that laughter is the only appropriate response. But remember, what you're laughing at is the notion that Heritage has an ounce of moral or intellectual integrity. That's a laughing matter, because Heritage obviously does not. Instead, they were all on board for death panel lies, and whatever else it took to stop Obama and the Democrats cold. They stopped at nothing.

Neither did Jared Loughner. I wonder where he got that idea.

Get Progressively Trained

Cliff Schecter — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:00:00 GMT

As someone who has been involved somewhat in the punditry circuit (for lack of a better term), I have been asked by progressive friends what I think is needed for the Left to compete with the Right, not so much in the war of ideas, as idea distribution.

To begin with, we need people who can confidently promote progressive values on television and radio. While the last decade has seen the creation and expansion of progressive think tanks, Air America Radio (an incubator of such talent as Rachel Maddow and Sam Seder), and even primetime MSNBC's becoming a mini-progressive tv outpost, we still lack the funding of the Right, and the pipeline it creates.

A 24-hour conservative television station and talk radio both nationally and locally dominated by conservatives doesn't only get the message out and give cover to politicians and political ideas once considered slightly to the right of insane (make no mistake, they've used these and many print distribution channels to take Bircherism, or Hofstadter's "Paranoid Style," mainstream--something which was once looked at as absolute looniness by those who even controlled the Establishment on the Right).

It also has created everyone from Glenn Beck to Sean Hannity to Tucker Carlson (we can also thank The Weekly Standard and Swanson for this last honor, as in Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson). So we may not have that. Or Heritage Foundation Summer School (with balconies!) and, for the most part, the other think tanks that pay conservative "thinkers" real salaries just to think out loud during non-paid tv segments, in low-paying articles and columns, and to write books nobody buys--but reach the NY Times bestseller list because these think tanks bulk buy 20,000 of them the minute they come out.

But we are making progress in other areas. One project I'm involved with, The Progressive Talent Initiative, not only provides 3.5 days of media training including everything from performance critiques to messaging advice, but the relationship continues afterwards, as the program gives you a tune up when you need it and helps get you booked for appearances.

It is a great program, which I had the luck of attending, and now maybe it's your turn. If you're a political strategist, progressive activist, blogger, academic, non-profit dweller or the like, this could be a great program for you to earn the key messaging and media training skills the Left so critically needs. The training is free to participants so if you are selected, can take the time to participate and are eager and willing to be booked after the training, the PTI team will take care of everything else.

If this is something you've been thinking about, give it a shot, as we need progressives armed with not only the facts, but the ability to share them with persuadable audiences.

So what are you doing March 9th-12th? If you'd like to apply for media training, now's your chance. The training is limited to only 12 participants, so showcase your talents in your application for the review committee to see. Application is available here and is open until January 14. So get in the game my friends!

Novel Threats and Military Readiness

Natasha Chart — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:30:00 GMT

Tired chickenhawk, James Jay Carafano of Heritage, recently patted the military on its collective head and told it not to worry about the climate. "Being Green is not the job of the U.S. military", he said. I wonder how his logic holds up:

As for climate change security, even if global temperatures rise, it will be generations before any dramatic change occurs. Even the U.S. military can adapt readily to that pace.
... Doomsday scenarios merit no consideration. But real developments demand a response. For example, we know the Artic is becoming navigable year round.

How's this for dramatic ... This year marks the first time the Arctic ice cap has been an island for 125,000 years, and within 4-20 years, the Arctic will be ice free all summer.

A spread of 16 years isn't very precise, but that's not the difference of even a whole person old enough to drink, let alone a multi-generational rate of change.
Further, every delay in reducing emissions increases the likelihood of a worst case scenario at the high end of IPCC scientists' 2007 predictions. Those predictions themselves were based on older data that may have underestimated the rate of ocean temperature changes and expansion, with observed effects occurring as much as 30 years ahead of schedule. Emissions have begun rising so fast just since 2002 that the world would need to be carbon-neutral by mid-century in order to have a hope of stabilizing it within its current range.

A warming of 5.1°Celsius by the end of the century is likely, with one in eleven odds of 7°C (12.6°F) warming in the next ninety years. Why? Because we've already reached the 'bad' range of 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalents in the atmosphere and some scientists are worried that we might hit 1000 ppm and face truly unpredictable devastation.

Just the five degree scenario is no great shakes:

... A "five degree world" -- well within the range of IPCC predictions -- would cause an almost unimaginable level of disruption and suffering.
The last time Earth was four or five degree hotter than it is now, some 30 million years ago, alligator-like creatures navigated swampy primeval forests at the North Pole.
"Sea levels, in the long run, would rise by 50 meters. You would have to redraw the map of Europe," and every other continent, said John Schellnhuber, director of the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
"The carrying capacity of the planet would fall to one billion people or less," Schellnhuber told the conference. ...

This is not a future where we'd get to wonder where to put 3 billion more people. We could end the century with only a sixth as many human beings as there are today.

Do you think it's possible, just a little bit, that this could have national security implications that go beyond Carafano's meanderings about "the impact of rules and regulations nations are adopting to combat green house gases"?

Well in any case, the military thinks so. In 2004, a flurry of sensationalist headlines obscured the very real point that the Pentagon under the Bush administration was war-gaming abrupt climate change out of concern for the implications of there being more natural disasters and less food.

That military analysis presupposed that the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic would shut down in the event of warming, causing a minor Ice Age in Europe and significant disruption elsewhere. It might not happen like that. But more disasters, less food; locusts could be responsible and it wouldn't make it safer to be living on a planet with millions more hungry, sometimes well-armed people.

Did I mention that report was out in 2004? Carafano would have his readers believe that it's only last year that radicals in Congress directed the Pentagon to pay attention to climate change. That's not the only place where his history falls down.

... Trying to turn back the global thermostat may lead to wider, more destructive violence, making our national security problems worse, not better. Remember the lesson of 1973.

By 1973, he refers to the OPEC embargo as precipitated by the Arab-Israeli war of the same year. (I think he was mainly looking for an excuse to call scientists and activists "climate-change sheiks." Mission accomplished.) It's just that the actual war wasn't caused by a price spike that everyone understood to be artificial.

Carafano's cause-and-effect switch seems to lead him to point out altering the price of polluting fuel as the chief evil. This assessment isn't shared by the federally-funded Center for Naval Analyses, a public research group that's also previously examined security and climate issues, and whose work he's referenced before when it suited him better.

A panel of generals and admirals CNA worked with just released a report saying that the country has about a decade to get its act together on climate change and curbing emissions because the impacts of changing weather and resource scarcity pose a serious national security threat. Mr. Carafano would apparently prefer us to take his word over theirs, in spite of the fact that the military is already walking some of its talk and planning to cut its carbon emissions 30 percent by 2015.

It's fair to point out that the climate might not warm to 5 degrees Celsius, that we might not hit 1000 ppm of carbon dioxide equivalents, that the Earth's carrying capacity might not be reduced to less than a sixth of what it is now. We can't know what the future holds for sure.

Yet we can make reasonable guesses about the likely outcomes of a given behavior. Like this: if you put your hand on a hot stove, you'll get burned.

Are we smart enough to get ourselves out of this mess, to keep our hand off that stove? I hope so. If we're to avoid it, we need the best minds in every sector of society working on how to do so instead of saying, as Carafano would have it, 'That isn't my job.'