H Con. Res. 63 - Washington's Delegation

The House earlier today passed House Concurrent Resolution 63 246-182 with 6 abstentions (including Dennis Hastert).

Here's how Washington's delegation voted:

Brian Baird (WA-3 D) Abstain
Norm Dicks (WA-6 D) Yea
Doc Hastings (WA-4 R) Nay
Jay Inslee (WA-1 D) Yea
Rick Larsen (WA-2 D) Yea
Jim McDermott (WA-7 D) Yea
Cathy McMorris (WA-5 R) Nay
Dave Reichert (WA-8 R) Nay
Adam Smith (WA-9 D) Yea

No real surprises there. All of the Democrats voted yea, with Baird abstaining (which is interesting, as he spoke so passionately on its behalf), while all the Republicans voted nay. McMorris and Reichert are both Republican light-weights who relied heavily on the Republican National Committee for their re-election bids. Doc Hastings is a total hack who was named chairman of the House Ethics committee after the former chair was sacked by Hastert for supporting the investigations into Tom DeLay, so his voted against was as predictable as the sunrise.

While the party identifiers, by an large, indicated how a given Representative would vote (within the Washington delegation and otherwise), it's important to note that a good deal of the Washington delegation originally supported to war. I believe Norm Dicks, Brian Baird, and Jim McDermott were the only Washingtonians in the House to vote against (Murray voted against the war in the Senate, while Cantwell voted for it). To their credit, Larsen and Inslee came out as critics of the war pretty early, before it was absolutely safe to do so. Both of their districts (WA-1 and WA-2) have large military communities, so I imagine they were playing to those constituencies (no excuse).

There's more: "H Con. Res. 63 - Washington's Delegation" >>

Educating Congress One Representative at a Time

The Seattle Times has printed its periodic update of the goings-on of Western Washington's Congressional delegation, and there's, unfortunately, not much to discuss. Other than some bland entries about Rep. Inslee and Sen. Murray trying to secure Boeing an Air force tanker contract, and Maria Cantwell breaking the ice on the Today show, it doesn't look like the Washington delegation is rousing much of the rabble. However, the entry at the end of the article amused me.

Dave Reichhert (R WA-8) squeaked by the last election in what should have been a cakewalk for him. His district is made primarily of upper-middle class professionals and Microsoft Millionaires who love tax-breaks on their income, their spending, and their SUVs, and care little for much else. His democratic opponent, Darcy Burner, a former Microsoft exec, ran a pretty pathetic campaign against him - nothing substantive, just pictures of Reichert with Bush. As a junior member of Congress, he wasn't in a position to do much while in the majority, and by and large, his voting record was in-step with his constituency (small government, low taxes, and generally environmental). Other than claiming that, perhaps, he didn't actually catch the Green River Killer, Burner was cursed from the outset.

However, Reichert pulled a classic Republican move when asked about his position on global warming; sure, it might be happening, but is it really our fault? Well, it seems as though Congressman Reichert has decided to get to the bottom of the whole "debate" and is trying to set up a meeting with none other than AL GORE to try to figure it all out.

Rep. Dave Reichert , whose questioning comments on global warming were derided by environmentalists during his re-election campaign last fall, wants to learn more about the issue.

His preferred teacher: Mr. Global Warming himself, former Vice President Al Gore.

Reichert, R-Auburn, has asked [Rep. Norm] Dicks to set up a meeting with Gore, whose global-warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" became a national sensation.

During a campaign rally in Seattle in October, Gore scoffed when told that Reichert said he was unsure of the role humans play in global warming.

Dicks humorously suggested a couple of months ago that Reichert and Gore talk, and now Reichert is ready with his notepad. No word yet from Gore.

Seriously.

Last week I noted that a local school district had put a moratorium on viewings of An Inconvenient Truth, due to perceived (and in my opinion, ultimately unfounded) biases in the film. I can only hope that this endorsement of Gore and his film by a Republican Congressman will finally put to rest the bull-shit claim that An Inconvenient Truth somehow skews the scientific consensus regarding this pressing problem.

There's more: "Educating Congress One Representative at a Time" >>

An Inconvenient 'Moratorium'

The Federal Way School District - located about 20 miles south of Seattle - has put the viewing of Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth on moratorium until the superintendent has an opportunity to review the district's regulations on biased materials in the class, per Seattle Times reporting.

I don't take issue with the policy per se, but rather, the assumption that Al Gore's film might be biased. First, I don't think that bias is that big a deal. It's impossible to avoid bias in one's writing, research, reporting, or rhetoric - everyone has normative values and assumptions that inform one's interpretation of data and events. What's important, however, is the identification of one's potential biases, and whether or not one's research methodologies take such potential biases into account. The scientific method has been developed in such a way as to mitigate one's bias as a potential variable which might effect the interpretation of possible outcomes. A district policy which attempts to preempt the politicization of youth by teachers by way of their instructional materials is certainly appropriate, as the goal of educational institutions is not to necessarily convince students of a point of view, but rather, to give them the skills to come to their own reasonable conclusions given evidence and theory.

The rub: One of the pertinent district policies

"states that, 'when it is necessary to use historical or literary works, periodicals, and technical journals which show bias, staff members have a responsibility to point out the biases, and present additional information and perspectives to balance those biases.' "

For those of you who have seen An Inconvenient Truth, it is pretty obvious that Al Gore isn't using a lot (if any) normative judgements. He cites firm scientific consensus, and builds his argument around firm statistics and data well within the constraints of the scientific method. Science, by definition, cannot be biased. Global warming isn't a liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, issue - it's a scientific issue. Data cannot be considered biased, it simply is what it is. Al Gore has a hypothesis - that human activity contributes to global warming, and that unless something is done about it soon, the effects might very well be unadaptable. He explores this hypothesis soundly, and uses theoretical frameworks which have been well accepted by the scientific community via study replication by numerous scholars and scholarly institutions. This documentary does not fall under the cited district policy. Assuming it does, then the district had better reconsider showing March of the Penguins or any number of Carl Sagan's Cal Tech astrophysics documentaries.

Given the negative reaction the district has received from the community at large, I'm sure that this controversy will end with the vindication of Gore's film. It's just unfortunate that the Federal Way School Board caved in so quickly to the demands of a vocal, and misinformed, minority.

There's more: "An Inconvenient 'Moratorium'" >>