Greenpeace and Supervisor Take Off Gloves to Fight Global Warming

San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who champions many city-based green initiatives, most notably the ban on plastic bags in San Francisco, spoke at City Hall on May 27 where Greenpeace presented a new report that showed the green-leaning state of California is still a leading emitter of global warming pollution. After the press conference, the organizers marched over to the office of House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi to deliver 30,000 petitions urging Congress to implement stronger measures to prevent global warming.

Calling the situation “urgent” in this video, Mirkarimi gave a rallying cry to Californians to reduce our carbon footprint. “California is the poster child for what is not going right in terms of carbon emissions, the Supervisor said. “It is our responsibility socially, culturally, philosophically, feduciarily and environmentally that we lead the pack.”

State Assemblyman Tom Ammanio provided a statement calling for leadership from Congress. “Despite California’s efforts, we are still ranked second in the nation for the highest amount of global warming emissions. Giving lip service to renewable energy or simply talking green will not be enough – we need strong committed leadership that will call for significant reductions and progressive environmental standards. This report should act as a wake-up call to all of us.”

The America’s Share of the Climate Crisis report released by Greenpeace reveals that California emitted more global warming pollution from fossil fuel consumption between 1960 and 2005 than 170 of the 184 countries studied. The report also finds that the US:

• exceeds all other nations in cumulative emissions since 1960, accounting for nearly 26 per cent of all the global warming pollution emitted in that period.
• emitted more CO2 than 171 of 184 countries combined.
• in California alone produces 6.7 times higher emissisons than China and 60 times more than Kenya.

The Greenpeace report states that despite President Obama’s calls for stronger climate legislation and $80 billion of economic stimulus funds to develop clean, renewable energy, these measures fall short of meeting the requirements necessary to avert a climate catastrophe.

Earlier this month, Greenpeace called out these “conservative” Democrats for supporting the widdling away of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) to relieve dirty energy providers of a capital crunch that would otherwise likely kill the coal-energy industry.

Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford issued the following statement:

“Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, this bill has been seriously undermined by the lobbying of industries more concerned with profits than the plight of our planet. While science clearly tells us that only dramatic action can prevent global warming and its catastrophic impacts, this bill has fallen prey to political infighting and industry pressure. We cannot support this bill in its current state. We call on President Obama and leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a bill, based on science, which presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transforms our economy with clean, renewable energy technology, generates new green jobs and shows real leadership internationally.”

One of the chief concerns that critics of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) have is that it gives legacy energy providers, such as coal, 60 per cent of the money generated in a carbon market compared to the 18 percent allotted to renewable providers such as wind and solar. This higher allowance to traditional energy providers disincentivize a quicker shift to renewable energy from a monetary point-of-view.

We are actually pretty worried about it,” says Matt Cheney, CEO of Renewable Venture. “It’s basically saying that by virtue of having polluted you now have the right to pollute in the new cap and trade program,” Cheney says.

According to the graph below, amendments to the ACES have had a coincidentally beneficial impact on the stock prices of the coal industry, as this graph show.

Links:

• America’s Share of the Climate Crisis Report
• Aces Low for the Solar Industry
• Critique of Waxman-Markey Climate Bill
• Coal Stocks Surge Mirrors Climate Bill Concessions
  

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

Greenpeace and Supervisor Take Off Gloves to Fight Global Warming

San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who champions many city-based green initiatives, most notably the ban on plastic bags in San Francisco, spoke at City Hall on May 27 where Greenpeace presented a new report that showed the green-leaning state of California is still a leading emitter of global warming pollution. After the press conference, the organizers marched over to the office of House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi to deliver 30,000 petitions urging Congress to implement stronger measures to prevent global warming.

Calling the situation “urgent” in this video, Mirkarimi gave a rallying cry to Californians to reduce our carbon footprint. “California is the poster child for what is not going right in terms of carbon emissions, the Supervisor said. “It is our responsibility socially, culturally, philosophically, feduciarily and environmentally that we lead the pack.”

State Assemblyman Tom Ammanio provided a statement calling for leadership from Congress. “Despite California’s efforts, we are still ranked second in the nation for the highest amount of global warming emissions. Giving lip service to renewable energy or simply talking green will not be enough – we need strong committed leadership that will call for significant reductions and progressive environmental standards. This report should act as a wake-up call to all of us.”

The America’s Share of the Climate Crisis report released by Greenpeace reveals that California emitted more global warming pollution from fossil fuel consumption between 1960 and 2005 than 170 of the 184 countries studied. The report also finds that the US:

• exceeds all other nations in cumulative emissions since 1960, accounting for nearly 26 per cent of all the global warming pollution emitted in that period.
• emitted more CO2 than 171 of 184 countries combined.
• in California alone produces 6.7 times higher emissisons than China and 60 times more than Kenya.

The Greenpeace report states that despite President Obama’s calls for stronger climate legislation and $80 billion of economic stimulus funds to develop clean, renewable energy, these measures fall short of meeting the requirements necessary to avert a climate catastrophe.

Earlier this month, Greenpeace called out these “conservative” Democrats for supporting the whittling away of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) to relieve dirty energy providers of a capital crunch that would otherwise likely kill the coal-energy industry.

Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford issued the following statement:

“Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, this bill has been seriously undermined by the lobbying of industries more concerned with profits than the plight of our planet. While science clearly tells us that only dramatic action can prevent global warming and its catastrophic impacts, this bill has fallen prey to political infighting and industry pressure. We cannot support this bill in its current state. We call on President Obama and leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a bill, based on science, which presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transforms our economy with clean, renewable energy technology, generates new green jobs and shows real leadership internationally.”

One of the chief concerns that critics of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) have is that it gives legacy energy providers, such as coal, 60 per cent of the money generated in a carbon market compared to the 18 percent allotted to renewable providers such as wind and solar. This higher allowance to traditional energy providers disincentivize a quicker shift to renewable energy from a monetary point-of-view.

We are actually pretty worried about it,” says Matt Cheney, CEO of Renewable Venture. “It’s basically saying that by virtue of having polluted you now have the right to pollute in the new cap and trade program,” Cheney says.

According to the graph below, amendments to the ACES have had a coincidentally beneficial impact on the stock prices of the coal industry, as this graph show.

Links:

• America’s Share of the Climate Crisis Report
• Aces Low for the Solar Industry
• Critique of Waxman-Markey Climate Bill
• Coal Stocks Surge Mirrors Climate Bill Concessions
  

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Slumdog Millionaire and Green Economics

by Richard Lawson

Went to Weston super Mare last night and watched Slumdog Millionaire. With 9 other people in the whole cinema. Like a private viewing.

Best film I have ever seen in my life. Partly because I do not get out much, but up there with Dancing with Wolves. And my assessment is untouched by the Oscars hype.

A story of a slum child answering a set of questions based on his tragic experience of life. A unique fusion of social realism and escapist dreams. A critique of failed economics, police brutality, criminal brutality, and the lies and insincerity of the celebrity culture.

It has been criticised for the term “slumdog” (well, OK) and as “Poverty Porn”. “Porn”? Porn satisfies the desire of some people to see sexually exciting images. Who wants to see images of poverty? Rather, the establishment wants to have these images hidden from popular consciousness. India is a country where poverty, defecation and death are not hidden, but in yer face. “Wealth porn” is what is behind the culture of celebrity throughout the world, where people watch the antics of spiritually poor rich people, and lust after their life style. Slumdog is a negation of wealth porn. If that is poverty porn, then so be it, and so much the better for the film.

The real criticism of the film is the fact that the child actors are still living in the slums.
The director Danny Boyle has set up a trust fund, but it is structured in a way that does not fully benefit the actors and their families now. We should ask that a substantial slice of the film’s profits go to benefit not just the actors and their families, but also their whole community and street children everywhere. There is evidence that the film has increased donations to Railway Children, a charity that works with street children in Mumbai. You can donate on line. Think in terms of how much you paid to see the film.

Charity giving is good and necessary, but the real question is an economic and political one – how to prevent the universal buildup of slums and favellas around the great cities that are growing throughout the world.

Dom Helder Camara said “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist”.

I had better start by saying that I am a Green, not a Red, as one of the founders of Greenpeace mentioned during the course of a police beating, a comment that is supposed to have been one of the first uses of the word “green” to indicate the new ecological political ideology. But I digress.

What is the solution to the problem of the underclasses, of which the “slumdogs” are the most blatant example?

First, the existence of absolute poverty is an affront to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which begins with the words: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

For this reason all governments must work to eliminate this poverty and exclusion, as part of their Responsibility to Protect.

How? This is not my main field, but here are five suggestions off the top of my head.

First, by reducing the factors that drive people to the cities, of which the foremost is rural poverty. This should not be impossible. The food of the cities comes from farmers in the countryside, so they have a vital commodity to sell, but they are not getting a fair price for it. Part of that problem is the pressure from mega food corporations, who are buying up land for mono-culture food production. Corporation taxes and other restraints will be needed to offset this problem.

Second, the people actually in the slums need a productive economic role. They already have a horrible role: they pick over the rubbish dumps – a foul, health and dignity destroying job. Instead, they can be the recyclers, picking up streamed waste from the prosperous parts of town, sorting and selling it. I saw this happening in Sao Paolo, with scores of guys pulling trailers of sorted waste.

There is other good work for them to do – like laying drains and building composting toilets in their own neighbourhood.

And so on. There is no need for unemployment and poverty in a green economy.

Third, by giving everyone a Citizen’s Income. It sounds radical, to give every citizen a basic income, sufficient for necessities. The idea has been around for a long time, and is making slow progress. If a state can afford things like bonuses, bailouts and bombs, it can afford a basic income. Indeed, it has a duty to do so. The central objection to the CI is “It is a liggers charter” “You cannot give something for nothing”. (No? What about the bailouts then?). The effective way around this objection is to introduce it via a Green Wage Subsidy. Exactly what is needed in the present economic situation. (Pity that the Handbrake Tendency succeeded in blocking it in Green Party Conference last year).

Fourth, a Social Contract between Government and people: Government undertakes to provide food and basic necessities for every citizen, if the citizens undertake to limit their families to replacement value. This is probably going to provoke a storm of criticism, but it is based on a perfectly sound, self-evident truth: it is impossible to expand forever into a finite space. It is simple realism.

Fifth, we need to address the inherently divergent tendencies of free market fundamentalist capitalism, for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. We need a localised, mixed economy with a guided market.

Amazing what comes up when you see a good film, isn’t it. I should get out more often.

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Slumdog Millionaire and Green Economics

by Richard Lawson

Went to Weston super Mare last night and watched Slumdog Millionaire. With 9 other people in the whole cinema. Like a private viewing.

Best film I have ever seen in my life. Partly because I do not get out much, but up there with Dancing with Wolves. And my assessment is untouched by the Oscars hype.

A story of a slum child answering a set of questions based on his tragic experience of life. A unique fusion of social realism and escapist dreams. A critique of failed economics, police brutality, criminal brutality, and the lies and insincerity of the celebrity culture.

It has been criticized for the term “slumdog” (well, OK) and as “Poverty Porn”. “Porn”? Porn satisfies the desire of some people to see sexually exciting images. Who wants to see images of poverty? Rather, the establishment wants to have these images hidden from popular consciousness. India is a country where poverty, defecation and death are not hidden, but in yer face. “Wealth porn” is what is behind the culture of celebrity throughout the world, where people watch the antics of spiritually poor rich people, and lust after their life style. Slumdog is a negation of wealth porn. If that is poverty porn, then so be it, and so much the better for the film.

The real criticism of the film is the fact that the child actors are still living in the slums.
The director Danny Boyle has set up a trust fund, but it is structured in a way that does not fully benefit the actors and their families now. We should ask that a substantial slice of the film’s profits go to benefit not just the actors and their families, but also their whole community and street children everywhere. There is evidence that the film has increased donations to Railway Children, a charity that works with street children in Mumbai. You can donate on line. Think in terms of how much you paid to see the film.

Charity giving is good and necessary, but the real question is an economic and political one – how to prevent the universal buildup of slums and favellas around the great cities that are growing throughout the world.

Dom Helder Camara said “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist”.

I had better start by saying that I am a Green, not a Red, as one of the founders of Greenpeace mentioned during the course of a police beating, a comment that is supposed to have been one of the first uses of the word “green” to indicate the new ecological political ideology. But I digress.

What is the solution to the problem of the underclasses, of which the “slumdogs” are the most blatant example?

First, the existence of absolute poverty is an affront to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which begins with the words: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

For this reason all governments must work to eliminate this poverty and exclusion, as part of their Responsibility to Protect.

How? This is not my main field, but here are five suggestions off the top of my head.

First, by reducing the factors that drive people to the cities, of which the foremost is rural poverty. This should not be impossible. The food of the cities comes from farmers in the countryside, so they have a vital commodity to sell, but they are not getting a fair price for it. Part of that problem is the pressure from mega food corporations, who are buying up land for mono-culture food production. Corporation taxes and other restraints will be needed to offset this problem.

Second, the people actually in the slums need a productive economic role. They already have a horrible role: they pick over the rubbish dumps – a foul, health and dignity destroying job. Instead, they can be the recyclers, picking up streamed waste from the prosperous parts of town, sorting and selling it. I saw this happening in Sao Paolo, with scores of guys pulling trailers of sorted waste.

There is other good work for them to do – like laying drains and building composting toilets in their own neighbourhood.

And so on. There is no need for unemployment and poverty in a green economy.

Third, by giving everyone a Citizen’s Income. It sounds radical, to give every citizen a basic income, sufficient for necessities. The idea has been around for a long time, and is making slow progress. If a state can afford things like bonuses, bailouts and bombs, it can afford a basic income. Indeed, it has a duty to do so. The central objection to the CI is “It is a liggers charter” “You cannot give something for nothing”. (No? What about the bailouts then?). The effective way around this objection is to introduce it via a Green Wage Subsidy. Exactly what is needed in the present economic situation. (Pity that the Handbrake Tendency succeeded in blocking it in Green Party Conference last year).

Fourth, a Social Contract between Government and people: Government undertakes to provide food and basic necessities for every citizen, if the citizens undertake to limit their families to replacement value. This is probably going to provoke a storm of criticism, but it is based on a perfectly sound, self-evident truth: it is impossible to expand forever into a finite space. It is simple realism.

Fifth, we need to address the inherently divergent tendencies of free market fundamentalist capitalism, for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. We need a localised, mixed economy with a guided market.

Amazing what comes up when you see a good film, isn’t it. I should get out more often.

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

Bill Moyers Hosts Critics of Cloistered Political Press

Bill Moyers recently interviewed two progressive journalists, Glenn Greenwald and Jay Rosen, who are counting Obama’s first days in D.C. with a sharp eye on the political opinion makers who drive so much of the story we all consume. Listen to the full show.

Greenwald suggested that the media’s treatment of the Daschle nomination provides an example of how complicitly it perpetuates business-as-usual conduct in Washington D.C.. The media missed the real story. While it focused on Daschle’s tax problems, it said nothing of how the retired Congressman has capitalized on his former office by providing legislative consulting to wealthy individuals and large corporations, including those in the health care industry.

“Most people consider that to be corruption. That’s what Barack Obama called it when he ran,” said Greenwald. “Yet, to members of the media, who have spent their lives in Washington, who are friends and colleagues of the people who are engorging themselves on this corrupt system, that is just the way of life. It’s like breathing air or drinking water.”

Rosen said that the Washington media players are part of a broken system intent upon keeping themselves relevant in order to maintain a career. “I think there’s a tendency for Washington journalists to see everything converging towards the political game that they are themselves masters of…The reason you won’t see an Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now!” on “Meet the Press” is that it would discredit the narrative that’s been building up for a long time.”

Rosen conjectures that Obama was probably a little surprised at the strength of the symbiotic relationship between political opinion makers and the political elite. “He is naturally a compromiser. And I think he’s going to be pulled between playing a savvy inside game and trying to mobilize anger from outside of Washington. He’s going to seesaw between these two things. “

“To members of the media, who have spent their lives in Washington, who are friends and colleagues of the people who are engorging themselves on this corrupt system, that is just the way of life. It’s like breathing air or drinking water. “

Both journalists optimistically agree that if Obama can hold fast to his early promises, the press corps will eventually adjust its narrative to embrace a more progressive story. However, Obama will not be able to do that without outside force. Citizen journalism and other internet social networks can shame the press corps into changing.

Here’s the complete transcript.

Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer turned journalist. His blog on Salon.com is one of the most influential on the internet. He’s written two best sellers: “How Would a Patriot Act?” about President Bush and executive power, and “A Tragic Legacy.” His most recent book is “Great American Hypocrites.”

Jay Rosen is a founder of the citizen journalism movement and is a professor of journalism at New York University, as well as a widely published writer and media critic. He created the popular blog called PressThink, subtitled “Ghost of Democracy in the Media Machine.”

GreenPeace of UK Greenwash of the Year Award Goes to…

United Kingdom’s Green Peace activists attempt to give the first annual Emerald Paintbrush Award to a company that has excelled in Greenwashing in this video. While the activists made it to the front desk of the award winner, British Petroleum (BP), they were hastily removed from the premises still holding the green award, the doors closed behind them.

The citation awarded BP for:

A multi-million dollar advertising campaign proclaiming its commitment to the earth, the sun and everything in between, and proudly announcing that the best way out of the energy “fix” is an energy “mix”.

In reality, the unnamed Tuxedo-clad activist said, BP had spent 93 per cent of its 2008 investment dollars in oil and gas exploration, drilling and distribution. Solar power received just $300 million dollar or just 1.3 per cent of BP’s total investment.

“So thanks must go to at this moment to BP senior staff, investment managers, strategists, and above all its advertising agency,” the jocular Green Peace representative concluded.

GreenPeace of UK Greenwash of the Year Award Goes to…

United Kingdom’s Green Peace activists attempt to give the first annual Emerald Paintbrush Award to a company that has excelled in Greenwashing in this video. While the activists made it to the front desk of the award winner, British Petroleum (BP), they were hastily removed from the premises still holding the green award, the doors closed behind them.

The citation awarded BP for:

A multi-million dollar advertising campaign proclaiming its commitment to the earth, the sun and everything in between, and proudly announcing that the best way out of the energy “fix” is an energy “mix”.

In reality, the unnamed Tuxedo-clad activist said, BP had spent 93 per cent of its 2008 investment dollars in oil and gas exploration, drilling and distribution. Solar power received just $300 million dollar or just 1.3 per cent of BP’s total investment.

“So thanks must go to at this moment to BP senior staff, investment managers, strategists, and above all its advertising agency,” the jocular Green Peace representative concluded.

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

GreenPeace of UK Greenwash of the Year Award Goes to…

United Kingdom’s Green Peace activists attempt to give the first annual Emerald Paintbrush Award to a company that has excelled in Greenwashing in this video. While the activists made it to the front desk of the award winner, British Petroleum (BP), they were hastily removed from the premises still holding the green award, the doors closed behind them.

The citation awarded BP for:

A multi-million dollar advertising campaign proclaiming its commitment to the earth, the sun and everything in between, and proudly announcing that the best way out of the energy “fix” is an energy “mix”.

In reality, the unnamed Tuxedo-clad activist said, BP had spent 93 per cent of its 2008 investment dollars in oil and gas exploration, drilling and distribution. Solar power received just $300 million dollar or just 1.3 per cent of BP’s total investment.

“So thanks must go to at this moment to BP senior staff, investment managers, strategists, and above all its advertising agency,” the jocular Green Peace representative concluded.

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

West Virginia Mountain Party Gubernatorial Candidate Shakes Up Two Party System

Special by Babette Hogan

updated version

The West Virginia Gubernatorial race is heating up – and it’s coal powered.

Jesse Johnson, the West Virginia Mountain Party’s candidate for Governor, matches up against the incumbent (d) Joe Manchin and (R)Senator Russ Weeks in this Public Broadcasting Debate.

Johnson is the only gubernatorial candidate of the three who is against the coal mining practice of Mountain Top Removal (MTR) and espouses a citizens’ extraction dividend, universal health care and free education, amongst other policies deemed unfriendly to big business. He was denied entry to the West Virginia Broadcast Assn., the first and most widely broadcast statewide debate, which pre-empted programming on three network channels. The WVBA defended their choice to exclude the third party candiate on the grounds that the Republican and Democrat were having a “private news event”. Published polls fail to indicate that the ballot qualified third party is even in the race, despite an overwhelming number of people being against MTR, according to a recent poll cited in the Charleston Gazette.

A discerning listener may notice that Johnson has to wait a rather long spell to be invited into the conversation between Governor Manchin, who is widely perceived as a “Dixiecrat” with several scandals floating around him, and pro-unborn life Weeks, who is willing to face up to Manchin, yet remains skeptical of progressive ideals. (Weeks likens Mountain Top Removal to an ” act of Mother Nature”, satisfied that eventually good things will come of MTR, like golf courses, shopping malls and developed communities.)

The first question asked of Johnson has nothing to do with policy, but reads, instead, like a third grade test of state emblems.

The host attempts a gotcha moment. “Could you name three people who you would appoint to Cabinet if you were actually to be elected Governor and why you would pick those people.” Johnson’s response, “I believe I probably could name three people, but if I’m not mistaken, you’re not supposed to be making those decision prior to the election and it’s against protocol and against the law in West Virginia.”

“Let me take another tack on that. Can you name three of the state cabinet posts?” Now, the video of this “debate” is not posted, only the audio, but if you could have seen it, as I had, you would have noticed how remarkably calm and polite Johnson remained in the face of his intelligence being insulted. Curtly after, the host reengages Weeks and Manchin in a policy question.

I was in the press conference room and the two local stations reporters mouths dropped with astonishishment when they heard the obvious bias of the reporter. However, this may not be entirely the host’s own prejudice. Manchin, as the self-appointed head of Public Broadcasting in West Virginia, does have some control.

Earlier in the day, while walking to a local breakfast diner past a park smattered with homeless people, I happened upon a church where a town car sat, a state trooper pacing outside. It was Sunday and service had started. I waited until the service and feast ended for the appearance of what I suspected would be Governor Manchin. Indeed, he did appear and when I approached him he set his face in a practiced friendly public performance smile. I asked him as he walked firmly to his polished coal black car, “Governor, what do you think about the recent report of vote switching in the early voting booths.” He marched sternly on with a grimacing smile, “You should go inside (the Church) and try some baklava.”

While I admit that addressing someone about politics after they have come out of Church might appear disrespectful, it wasn’t his church; he was just polticking. So, I ask again Governor, “Those machines that you bought when you were Secretary of State, doesn’t it concern you that they are apparently switching the vote?”

We had a chance to interview Manchin and Weeks after the debate, but both candidates refused. Manchin then cornered Johnson in one side of the room, keeping his back to us enforcing his view that MTR was essential. Weeks, wearing the soft silver new-born feet pin of a pro-lifer/anti-choicer, refused because of his concern that “environmentalists” misrepresent him.

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

West Virginia Mountain Party Gubernatorial Candidate Shakes Up Two Party System

Special by Babette Hogan

updated version

The West Virginia Gubernatorial race is heating up – and it’s coal powered.

Jesse Johnson, the West Virginia Mountain Party’s candidate for Governor, matches up against the incumbent (d) Joe Manchin and (R)Senator Russ Weeks in this Public Broadcasting Debate.

Johnson is the only gubernatorial candidate of the three who is against the coal mining practice of Mountain Top Removal (MTR) and espouses a citizens’ extraction dividend, universal health care and free education, amongst other policies deemed unfriendly to big business. He was denied entry to the West Virginia Broadcast Assn., the first and most widely broadcast statewide debate, which pre-empted programming on three network channels. The WVBA defended their choice to exclude the third party candiate on the grounds that the Republican and Democrat were having a “private news event”. Published polls fail to indicate that the ballot qualified third party is even in the race, despite an overwhelming number of people being against MTR, according to a recent poll cited in the Charleston Gazette.

A discerning listener may notice that Johnson has to wait a rather long spell to be invited into the conversation between Governor Manchin, who is widely perceived as a “Dixiecrat” with several scandals floating around him, and pro-unborn life Weeks, who is willing to face up to Manchin, yet remains skeptical of progressive ideals. (Weeks likens Mountain Top Removal to an ” act of Mother Nature”, satisfied that eventually good things will come of MTR, like golf courses, shopping malls and developed communities.)

The first question asked of Johnson has nothing to do with policy, but reads, instead, like a third grade test of state emblems.

The host attempts a gotcha moment. “Could you name three people who you would appoint to Cabinet if you were actually to be elected Governor and why you would pick those people.” Johnson’s response, “I believe I probably could name three people, but if I’m not mistaken, you’re not supposed to be making those decision prior to the election and it’s against protocol and against the law in West Virginia.”

“Let me take another tack on that. Can you name three of the state cabinet posts?” Now, the video of this “debate” is not posted, only the audio, but if you could have seen it, as I had, you would have noticed how remarkably calm and polite Johnson remained in the face of his intelligence being insulted. Curtly after, the host reengages Weeks and Manchin in a policy question.

I was in the press conference room and the two local stations reporters mouths dropped with astonishishment when they heard the obvious bias of the reporter. However, this may not be entirely the host’s own prejudice. Manchin, as the self-appointed head of Public Broadcasting in West Virginia, does have some control.

Earlier in the day, while walking to a local breakfast diner past a park smattered with homeless people, I happened upon a church where a town car sat, a state trooper pacing outside. It was Sunday and service had started. I waited until the service and feast ended for the appearance of what I suspected would be Governor Manchin. Indeed, he did appear and when I approached him he set his face in a practiced friendly public performance smile. I asked him as he walked firmly to his polished coal black car, “Governor, what do you think about the recent report of vote switching in the early voting booths.” He marched sternly on with a grimacing smile, “You should go inside (the Church) and try some baklava.”

While I admit that addressing someone about politics after they have come out of Church might appear disrespectful, it wasn’t his church; he was just polticking. So, I ask again Governor, “Those machines that you bought when you were Secretary of State, doesn’t it concern you that they are apparently switching the vote?”

We had a chance to interview Manchin and Weeks after the debate, but both candidates refused. Manchin then cornered Johnson in one side of the room, keeping his back to us enforcing his view that MTR was essential. Weeks, wearing the soft silver new-born feet pin of a pro-lifer/anti-choicer, refused because of his concern that “environmentalists” misrepresent him.