“How can it be appropriate to change the legal mechanism for filling a vacancy after that vacancy has occurred?”
“Oh yes he did say that!”
=================================
Can Massachusetts Do That?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
While I agree with the thoughts expressed in the Aug. 29 editorial “Filling a Void,” it did not get to the most relevant issue regarding filling the U.S. Senate vacancy created by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).
So Massachusetts law calls for a special election, but Democrats want to change the law to allow the governor to name an interim senator. How can it be appropriate to change the legal mechanism for filling a vacancy after that vacancy has occurred? Wouldn’t this be a variation of an unconstitutional “ex post facto” law, since the process would be changed retroactively — after the action that triggers that process has taken place?
SCOTT TATE
Arlington (Virginia)
=================================
So to those Massachusetts legislators who wish to change the law and thwart the rights of the public to vote for their U.S. Senator, we say:
NOTE: We shut down for a couple of weeks here at “ONYDST” for summer vacations. Hope you’ve had a chance to enjoy the summer, as well.
“What has changed is the University’s former policy … of sending grade reports … to parents or guardians of dependent students … we are therefore discontinuing these forms of communication.” – from the president of a private, East-coast university
The statement above is from a letter sent to parents of students at this institution of higher learning (and was received by an “ONYDST” staffer). We will not state which institution, in the interest of confidentiality and with the understanding that something similar is probably being received by parents of students at a number of other schools. You may not entirely get the gist of what this letter is saying from the quote above, so here it is: the University will not be sending grades to parents that are footing the bill for their children to attend this school. “Oh no, did they really say that?”
According to the letter, “Upon a student’s matriculation into an undergraduate program … regardless of the student’s age, those rights [access to the child's education records] transfer to the student.” We are certainly in favor of granting a level of responsibility to our children, especially since the large majority of undergraduate students have reached the age of majority – 18 years. However, the idea that parents should be forbidden from viewing their child’s grades, when they are paying for the child’s education, strikes us as being a step too far.
Apparently all of this springs from a federal law, know as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA was enacted by Congress to protect the privacy of student educational records and one key element states that schools must have written permission from the student in order to release any information from a student’s educational record. In general, this is a very good idea and prevents the release of this type of information to unknown parties. However, the Act does not specifically bar parental access to a dependent student’s educational records, but specifies that there be clearly delineated policies and procedures for the disclosure of these records. This is all somewhat technical and lawyerly, so we won’t belabor it. We will say, however, that it seems the onus is on the institutions to come up with policies and procedures that are understood by all; that prevent access to any student records by unauthorized, non-family entities; but that allow access to educational records to dependent students and their parents.
On a side note, an interesting additional quote is this: “This policy reflects the University’s view that students should be treated as responsible adults … [emphasis added by us]” It seems that if the University views their undergraduate students as adults; and if state and federal laws hold these adults responsible for signing contracts, committing criminal acts, and joining the military; then these same adults should be able to responsibly enjoy an alcoholic beverage. But that is a whole other discussion …
So we will send a dual message to the federal lawmakers and bureaucrats who crafted an Act that puts colleges and universities in a legal bind regarding the interaction between students and their parents; and to the institutions who can’t find the ability to create a set of policies and procedures for parents that would allow commen-sense access to the educational records which are paid for with their dollars:
“I love these members that get up and say, ‘Read the bill’! Well, what good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?” – Representative John Conyers, D-MI
Did a veteran member of Congress say there is no need to read a bill which is being debated and on which he will be voting? Did he say he would not be obligated to understand “what it means”? Oh yes, he really did!
Rep. Conyers made the above remarks during a speech at the National Press Club this week and seemed quite smug and self-satisfied after making them. We watched the video of this quote, and after lifting our collective jaws off the floor, an “ONYDST” researcher said, “I bet very few congressmen ever read those bills. I give Conyers some credit for stating the truth, even though it was stupid for him to say publicly.” That may be a valid point, but for the average American, the idea that a member of Congress would not read a bill before voting on it seems absolutely outrageous. However, Rep. Conyers is not the only member of the House leadership who feels that reading and understanding all of a complicated piece of legislation is necessary.
During hearings for the “cap-and-trade” bill, an exchange occurred between Representatives Joe Barton, R-TX and Henry Waxman, D-CA. Rep. Barton was raising an issue about a particular item in the bill. He asked Rep. Waxman, “Did you know that was in this bill?” Waxman hesitated and then replied, “You asking me?” Barton confirmed that he was asking the committee chairman a question. Waxman then stated, “I certainly don’t claim to know everything that’s in this bill. I know that we left it to … the scientists … That’s what I know, but I don’t know the details.” This bill was huge (at the time of this hearing, about 900 pages), so it might be understandable that a member of Congress might not fully understand all of the details prior to the completion of committee hearings – except for the fact that it was this member’s legislation (cosponsored with Ed Markey, D-MA – Waxman wrote the bill but didn’t read it?). As in the case of Rep. Conyers, it was not just the words he said, but how he said them – in a dismissive, condescending tone of voice. He was clearly annoyed that someone would expect him to actually understand the details of his legislation.
Would you think that the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives would expect all members, or at least his caucus, to read bills in their entirety prior to voting on them? Well, if you thought “yes”, you thought wrong. Earlier this month, Representative Steny Hoyer, D-MD, leader of the House Democrats, said, in relation to the health care bill, “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” In fact, Rep. Hoyer apparently found the whole idea of members completely reading the bills on which they vote to be humorous and absurd. “I’m laughing because I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said, driving home the point that if a bill is too long, why read it?
So, maybe we’re all a bunch of rubes/yokels/hayseeds and don’t understand how important and busy is the life of a member of Congress. Maybe with briefings from staff members and others who did read such bills, members will be casting educated, well-thought-out votes. However, you would think that such experienced politicians would have the decency to at least pretend that they have done their due diligience and personally read each piece of legislation.
Currently, a group named “Let Freedom Ring” has distributed a pledge to all members of the Senate and House of Representatives that reads, in part, “I will not vote to enact any healthcare reform package that … I have not read, personally, in its entirety …” The pledge currently has 101 signers – out of 535 total Senators and members of Congress. So it’s not exactly catching on fire yet. Also, apparently not everybody in the House Democrat leadership has a political tin ear, as a 5-hour work session was organized for about 180 members of the Democratic caucus, in which staffers went through the bill, section by section. An attendee noted, “No one’s going to say we haven’t read the bill.”
We do not want to debate the merits of any bills today, but just suggest that there is nothing unreasonable about constituents expecting their legislators to read completely and understand fully the bills on which they are voting. So to those Senators and members of Congress that have demonstrated by their words and deeds that they will do so, we say, “Nice work!” However, circling back to John Conyers’ dismissive remarks and contempt for those who expect him to perform his job competently, we say:
“We cannot but regard Mrs. Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric … Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping.” – North Korean Foreign Ministry Spokesman
This oddly-worded, verbal assault on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was issued by North Korea on Thursday (7/23) of this week. It was apparently triggered by some remarks Clinton made on ABC News while in New Delhi earlier in the week, when she compared the North Koreans to unruly children or demanding teenagers. “Don’t give it to them, they don’t deserve it; they are acting out,” she observed (we know, we have teenagers…).
This whole exchange would be hilarious, except for that fact that, beneath it all, very serious issues are involved. However, relative to the North Korean statement, it is our experience that you can’t buy writing like that (what do they pay those wordsmiths in the DPRK)! To call the sitting U.S. Secretary of State a child and an old lady is strange enough, but we can suppose that only a true Communist (in a country with empty store shelves and paltry wages) would feel he’s getting off a real zinger when disparaging someone for “going shopping”!
We’re not going to delve into the serious issues of human rights and nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula right now, but had to seize on this notable, but strange, quote by a Kim Jong Il lackey. So we say to North Korea, while simultaneously scratching our heads:
- “If we do not move swiftly to sign [the economic stimulus bill] into law, an economy … will be faced with catastrophe … This is the assessment of the best economists in the country.”
- “Few challenges facing America, and the world, are more urgent than combatting climate change. The science is beyond dispute …”
- “The need for [health care] reform is urgent, and it is indisputable.”
- President Barack Obama
Three of the most massive, expensive and complicated bills that have come before the United States Congess in years are so urgent and so compelling, that we need to pass them now (or already have). No cause for debate, as the concepts are clearly correct. No reason to slow down and make sure all sides have been examined, as the need for action is immediate and the consequences of inaction dire.
We say, with a slight alteration to this site’s name, “Oh no you can’t say that.”
A call for “urgent” action on a bill in Congress, along with huge pressure from the President, Speaker, Majority Leader, etc. can be described as “necessary for passage”. A more appropriate term is “railroading”, defined by Merriam-Webster Online as, “to push through hastily or without due consideration” – precisely what the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress want. We, the taxpayers and citizens of the United States, are to accept that bills that have not even been read in their entirety by members of Congress, should be passed and signed posthaste. The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, weighed in at about 1100 pages. The cap-and-trade package, officially named the American Clean Energy and Security Act, came in at about 1200 pages. Currently, there are three versions of health-care reinvention working their way through Congress – the latest bill by House Democrats numbering a staggering 1018 pages. And considering last-minute additions to bills can add hundreds more pages (300 pages added the day before cap-and-trade was voted on), the health-care bill will surely be a whopper. So the question is this: with these massive tomes, involving extremely complicated issues and costing hundreds of billions of dollars, why would any rational person want to rush the decision-making process or create artificial deadlines? Why would some suggest that failure to pass such measures – right away – might mean they will never get enacted – because they shouldn’t?
We have been told these bills are so urgent and “beyond dispute” that there is no need for the public, or for members of Congress for that matter, to actually understand everything in them. A possible conclusion is that what is called “delay”, which more appropriately should be called “deliberation”, will reveal fatal flaws in them. With all of the implications that the stimulus bill (already passed), the cap-and-trade bill (passed by the House), and the health care bill (in House committees) have for Americans, the only thing that is “indisputable” is the need to make sure we get them right (or, if necessary, don’t pass them at all).
Our intent here is not to argue the details of these massive bills, but to say, someone has to do it. They need to be debated thoroughly, over an appropriate timeline, and with true bipartisan consideration. We should not get caught up in feel-good demonstrations of support “because people in Washington played the politics of the moment instead of putting the interests of the American people first” (Pres. Barack Obama, 7/21/09). Well said, Mr. President.
Such measures may very well serve the interests of this country. However, the consequences of their passage – both intended and unintended – must weigh heavily on the minds of all our lawmakers. So we say to you, Mr. President, with respect and humility:
“Oh no you didn’t say that [we shouldn't have a robust debate]!”
“Mr. Ricci … can’t have it both ways; these laws can’t be good when you use them to protect yourself and bad when they’re used to protect someone else.” – People For the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker
Ms. Baker and People for the American Way, an organization that states in its mission statement that it is “dedicated to … a vibrantly diverse democratic society in which everyone is treated equally under the law, [and] given the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams…” have decided to villify a law-abiding, hard-working firefighter, whose only offense is to want to be treated fairly. Mr. Ricci worked hard to pursue his dreams, asked only to be “treated equally under the law”, and is now being attacked by a “progressive” group that is happy to tear him down in order to support the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. They have also decided to investigate and publicize what they describe as “Frank Ricci’s troubled and litigious work history.” Disgraceful.
The introductory quote refers to the lead plaintiff in Ricci vs. DeStafano, a lawsuit recently decided by the Supreme Court in Mr. Ricci’s favor. It stems from a group of eighteen firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut that passed a test for promotions to management. City of New Haven officials subsequently invalidated the test because none of the African-American firefighters passed the exam. After working its way through the courts, the Supreme Court heard the case on April 22, 2009 and issued its ruling on June 29, 2009, deciding that New Haven’s decision to ignore the test results violated provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ms. Baker is apparently confused by what she sees as inappropriateness in Mr. Ricci’s past protection by the Americans with Disabilities Act which prevented the City of New Haven from denying his employment as a firefighter based upon his learning disability (dyslexia). The Supreme Court has clarified and affirmed the constitutionality of the ADA on numerous occasions, so it is settled law and should be applied where necessary.
Let’s get it straight – the highest court in the land affirmed that Mr. Ricci was correct in his belief he was discriminated against. In addition, application of a different, existing statute prevented Mr. Ricci from being discriminated against in the past. Ms. Baker made the above statement well after the Supreme Court rendered its Ricci vs. DeStafano decision, so her words are irrelevant, uninformed, mean-spirited, dismissive – and despicable.
During the process of vying for a promotion, Mr. Ricci did not ask for special accommodations to assist him in studying for the management test. To the contrary, he paid $1000 to have the textbooks read onto audio tapes, to compensate for his reading disability. In addition, he took practice tests, made flash cards, and studied with others. He was provided with an opportunity, of which he made the most – and passed the test. His victory was then taken away from him – he was treated unfairly, he decided he would not let it stand, and he was proven correct. To create a campaign to denigrate a public servant – a first responder at that – because of his demand to be given a fair shake is beyond the pale.
Mr. Ricci, congratulations on your successes – for your passing grade on the promotions test and your successful case before the Supreme Court. Ms. Baker, we say “Shame on you” and:
- “Defendants … have engaged in coercion, threats, and … intimidation of voters … brandished a deadly weapon … made statements containing racial threats … at both black and white individuals … while the polls were open for voting.”
- “The department [of justice] is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote.”
- “The United States dismisses the claims against these Defendants …”
- All of the above from the United States Department of Justice
The above quotes, part of an astonishing series of events, were not all technically said by individuals – the first is from a complaint, filed on January 7, 2009; the second is from a DOJ spokesman; and the third is from the notice of dismissal, with a filing date of May 15, 2009. They are all related to a situation that occurred at a polling location in Philadelphia, PA last November. Before explaining, in more depth, the circumstances of these actions, we want to make a few things clear:
We understand the concept that this is a complaint – an accusation – which can, after further investigation, be appropriately dismissed.
However, the threats and intimidation described were witnessed by numerous individuals and captured on video footage.
In addition, the defendants made no effort to appear and respond to the charges, which would in most cases result in a default judgement (a conviction on the charges), but was dismissed instead.
The actions of the defendants were described in the original complaint in considerable detail. The men involved, members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, not only intimidated voters, but “made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters” – meaning poll workers. One of the defendants brandished a “nightstick, or baton … and while the polls were open … pointed the weapon at individuals, menacingly tapped it [in] his other hand, or menacingly tapped it elsewhere.” The defendants wore “military style uniforms … [that] included black berets, combat boots, bloused battle dress pants, rank insignia … and black jackets.” All of these actions, as well as the “loud and open use of racial slurs and insults” created “the inimidating and threatening presence at a polling location” in violation of provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Here is a brief video sample of some of the defendant’s behavior:
One notable witness of the defendant’s behavior is Bartle Bull, an experienced attorney and veteran of the civil rights movement. Mr. Bull called the actions, “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s.” In a letter to the Department of Justice, the United States Commission on Civil Rights says, “defendants were caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the November 4, 2008 general election.” The letter went on to further state, “So it is with great confusion that we learn of the … decision to dismiss a lawsuit against defendants who were caught engaging in attempted voter suppression the likes of which we haven’t witnessed in decades.”
The DOJ and its Civil Rights Division had basically won the case and could have submitted a motion for default judgement against the individuals involved, as well as the New Black Panther Party. However, the case was dismissed, with DOJ citing as its rationale the fact that the defendants “… have made no appearance and have filed no pleadings with the Court. Nor have they otherwise raised any other defenses to this action.” A former DOJ official said, “I have never heard of the Department dismissing a case it has already won by default.” The previously mentioned letter from the Commission on Civil Rights said the decision sends the “wrong message”, suggesting “that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them.”
This entire episode is puzzling to us at “ONYDST” – and we hope it puzzles you, as well. The postal and email addresses of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King) and your Congressman and Senator are all a matter of public record. We’ll leave it at that, but will say to the Department of Justiice, with great conviction and absolute astonishment:
“Close-minded people are very certain and dogmatic in their views, and generally believe that there is a single correct point of view.” – Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Huh? To paraphrase a bit, didn’t Prof. Albarracin just say that “close-minded people are close-minded people”? The above quote relates to a new NIH-funded study to determine “whether exposure to information is guided by defense or accuracy motives.” In other words, the analysis is intended to determine if people want to have their opinions confirmed by others more than they want to determine if their opinions are valid. All of this comes from an American Psychological Association study entitled, Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information. The report ultimately comes to the conclusion that people who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives, for fear they will be shown up by their more-confident counterparts. This discovery is hardly a breakthrough, but does provide perspective for some of today’s most pressing and/or controversial societal issues.
Professor Albarracin also states, “The implication is that you have a group of people who would only seek to confirm their points of view, resisting all evidence to the contrary via avoidance of exposure.” Can you say “global warming”? Or “health insurance reform”? Or, five years ago, “stem cell research”? Our point is that, too often, politicians, the media, and the punditry claim issues are “settled” (for scientific and/or moral reasons). Does this study suggest that, in reality, such issues are only settled in the minds of “people with little confidence in their own beliefs”? Now, we certainly don’t mean to suggest that the heavy-hitters that have weighed in on these and other issues don’t have certainty in their beliefs, but that it is peculiar that such important matters have not always been submitted to the kind of rigorous inquiry that they should. To quote such a heavy-hitter, “… promoting science … [is] about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient, especially when it’s inconvenient.” These are the words of President Barack Obama (12/20/08). Let’s hope he, and others, show that these words do not ring hollow, as we confront the many environmential, health-care, economic, and foreign policy challenges we face down the road.
However, we started with a quote that was funded by your tax dollars, but that common sense says is obvious on the face of it. So to this researcher we say:
“The term, ‘Congress,’ Madame Speaker, actually is an ancient term. It means interaction — it means the intercourse between men and women — and ideas and philosophies.” – Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
He said it, not us! With some of the recent antics of former and current members of the House and Senate in the news, we wanted to make that clear. This quote is from floor debate in the House of Representatives prior to the vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (and directed at Speaker Pelosi too!). Congressman Pence followed the above quote by saying, “This is not Congress” (still trying to figure out whether there should be quotes around the word Congress there). We certainly understand that the congressman was in all likelihood making a perfectly innocent remark and that we are snickering in an immature teenage-adolescent-boy sort of way. Whatever. This quote calls out for a little extra clarification.
The above quote is from Roll Call. Our crack research team did find a slightly different quote in the Congressional Record. After “… an ancient term,” it continues, “It means interaction. It means the intercourse between men and women in ideas and philosophies.” This would indicate that slightly different wordings and pacing could be interpreted by different listeners at that late hour (Rep. Pence says it was “3 o’clock in the morning”).
So, we won’t belabor this any longer, but will say, with our tongue planted firmly in our cheek:
“[Lt. Gov.] André Bauer … has somewhat eccentric behavior patterns … The prospect of him in the governor’s mansion has caused a lot of people who might otherwise pressure the governor to resign not to do so.” – James L. Guth, a political scientist at Furman University (Greenville, SC)
Well, we may already be violating our statement of critiquing quotes from “celebrities”, but the above quote is related to issues regarding the recently-discovered transgressions of the governor of South Carolina. This deep-South gubernatorial kerfuffle has certainly risen to celebrity-like levels, so we will give it the “ONYDST” treatment. What is shocking is that, despite the governor’s awful judgement, clear deception and rampant hypocrisy, there is a current of thought in SC that Lieutenant Governor André Bauer (R) would be a lousy alternative.
Just to recap briefly, it is now common knowledge that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) was involved in an at-least one year affair [Update: "crossed lines" with other women; had "some kind of connection" with Argentinian woman in 2001] with an Argentinian woman and returned last week from a seven-day disappearance that had left staffers, reporters, and voters scratching their heads over the governor’s whereabouts. Though Sanford has been contrite and stated, “What I did was wrong. Period,” there have been calls for his resignation from state lawmakers in both parties.
However, there seems to be a level of unease about the prospect of Lt. Governor Bauer assuming the role of governor. Mr. Guth says, “It’s a much larger factor than anybody’s willing to state publicly.” Bauer has had some notable run-ins with the law, at least as far as his driving skills. According to his driving record with the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, Bauer has had at least two accidents, four tickets and one suspended license for failure to pay a ticket, including an incident where an officer drew his gun after the lieutenant governor began heading towards the officer’s cruiser in an “aggressive manner” (he was subsequently issued a ticket for reckless driving). Bauer was also apparently pulled over for speeding over 100 mph in Chester County, South Carolina in a state-issued car, but was allowed to proceed without a ticket or warning.
While none of these incidents disqualify Bauer from becoming the chief executive of the Palmetto State, the current situation is causing people “in-the-know” in South Carolina to engage in an excrutiating “lesser of two evils” debate. Do you give the benefit of the doubt to a sitting governor that went AWOL on his constituents on an adulterous tryst and whose actions have raised questions about state-paid travel expenses? Or take a leap of faith on a young lieutenant governor whose has exhibited “eccentric behavior” in the past and who’s potential ascension to governor would “allow a disaster to be replaced with catastrophe”, says an aide to attorney general Henry McMaster (R)?
These issues are obviously for the citizens, elected officials, and other authorities in South Carolina to decide, but for airing what could be construed by many as some of the state’s dirty political laundry, we say to Professor Guth:
“In Iran, firstly, we do not have homosexuals like you have here [in this country]. In our country, such a thing does not exist.” – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, September 24, 2007
In general, when we say, “Oh no you didn’t say that,” we will be commenting on current, topical quotes by politicians, sports figures, entertainers, and other celebrities. However, in solidarity with the reform and democracy-seeking people in Iran, we will look at an oldie, but a goodie (baddie?) from 2007. The above quote is one translation of the first part of a several sentence jaw-dropper by the then-current and now, however legitimately (or not), re-elected President of Iran. Here is another, slightly longer translation, with crowd reaction added.
“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. [uproarious and derisive laughter from crowd] We don’t have that in our country. [more laughter, then turning into boos] In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon, I don’t know who has told you we have it.” [more laughter, mixed with more boos]
As the crowed reaction indicated, this statement was a true howler – however, it ceases to be funny when the reality of the state of those charged with homosexuality or Lavat (sodomy) in Iran is understood. Fines, prison sentences, lashings, and in many, many cases, execution are the punishments for male and female homosexuality. Jessica Stern, researcher with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch, said, regarding a 2005 execution of two men for homosexual conduct, “The execution of two men for consensual sexual activity is an outrage. The Iranian government’s persecution of gay men flouts international human rights standards.” Wikipedia states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran), “Any type of sexual activity outside of a heterosexual marriage is forbidden [in Iran].”
The history of LGBT rights has been truly ghastly in Iran, especially since the 1979 revolution. For a moment and due to his ignorance and hypocrisy, the President of Iran gave us the opportunity to have a good laugh at his expense. So, for giving us a good chuckle for a minute, but shocking the sensibilities of tolerant, reasonable people throughout the world for many years, we say to you, Mr. Ahmadinejad:
“… this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe.” - President Barack Obama
The above quote is from the President’s June 23, 2009 press conference. It is in reference to the “cap-and-trade” bill making its way through Congress [Update: passed by House of Representatives by 219-212 vote on 6/26/09]. This was not in response to a question (so he was not “winging it”), but part of the prepared remarks. I do not want to get into a debate about “global warming” or “climate change” today, however when the President of the United States makes such a decidedly unfactual statement regarding “carbon emissions”, it is necessary to correct that statement. “Carbon emissions” do not make the water we drink unhealthy, nor does it cause damage to animals and plants on this planet that inhale the air we breathe. A quick Google search of the term “carbon emissions” shows that common usage of this phrase is synonomous with carbon dioxide. I don’t know where the president went to school (!?!), but in most elementary school courses we learn that, on a very simple level, animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Conversely, plants “inhale” carbon dioxide and “exhale” oxygen. Put another way, plants take in sunlight and carbon dioxide which through the process of photosysthesis they turn into sugar (food) and oxygen.
William Happer, the former Chief Scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy and now Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University says, “Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind.” So when the President says that “the legislation is paid for” by those who “emit … dangerous carbon emissions”, isn’t he stating that the bill will be paid by all of us “dangerous” “polluters”? Are we, and all of the other animals on this planet, dangerously polluting the air every day, just by our very existence? There is no debate that carbon dioxide causes no harm to life on this planet, as an atmospheric gas we all respirate. In fact, considerable research shows that plants thrive when carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises.
As far as contaminating “the water we drink”, the soda in your hand is “contaminated” with carbon dioxide – CO2 is what makes the bubbles in CARBONated water! Recently, the National Academy of Sciences just published a study that shows sea stars exhibited significantly increased growth rates when carbon dioxide concentrations were doubled in laboratory conditions. There is no clear evidence that increased CO2 in the oceans is detrimental to sea life, but instead can carry substantial benefits for the vast majority of marine life.
To call “carbon emissions” “dangerous” is an outrageous twisting of the facts. It seems that no one dared to call out the President on such a clear misstatement. So we’re saying it here:
