popular logistics

This must be one of those “absent-minded” professors we’re always hearing about. Because he’s apparently not one of the “treehugging liberal elite,” either.

Celeste Monforton points out that Professor Rick Honaker of the University of Kentucky recently wrote an Op-Ed - but didn’t disclose that his professorship, and his department, take money from mining interests - and made broad and extravagant claims regarding the introduction of H.R. 2768:

In “New Mining Bill Premature,” printed in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Professor Rick Honaker says it is incomprehensible” that Congress is attempting to place new safety requirements on coal operators. * He claims new mandates will “serve no useful purpose” and will “only undermine the efforts of those trying to implement” the 2006 MINER Act. That’s some tough criticism.

On closer look, I notice that neither the op-ed itself nor the professor’s byline mentions his university department’s financial connection to mining industry—an industry that also strongly opposes HR 2768. These ties include a large financial endowment established by the mining industry, called the Mining Engineering Foundation. The Foundation was created in 1983 with a $1 million endowment, which included a hefty donation of $500,000 from Mr. Catesby Clay, president of Kentucky River Coal.** Interest from the fund now provides financial support to school’s mining engineering department.

- snip -

In Dr. Honaker’s case, his byline states:

“Rick Honaker is the Mining Foundation Distinguished Professor and chairman of the University of Kentucky department of mining engineering.”

I’ve since learned that Dr. Honaker’s distinguished professorship is affiliated with the Mining Engineering Foundation, (not the Mining Foundation.) This led me to the information about the group’s financial support of Professor Honaker’s department.

- snip -

Notes:

*In the posted version of Rick Honaker PhD’s op-ed, the yellow highlighted phrases are mine (for emphasis.)

**Mr. Clay was recently honored by the Kentucky Coal Association.

Celeste Monforton’s post at The Pump Handle.

It’s disturbing that the Lexington Herald-Leader couldn’t (or wouldn’t) figure this out for itself - it’s axiomatic that readers are entitled to know who’s speaking - or on whose behalf a speaker works.

If Professor Honaker ever testifies under oath, and makes, or has made, a practice of this omission, he’s laid an elegant foundation for some interesting cross-examination. To quote the noted trial lawyer David Lewis, “Bias is never collateral.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that Honaker is right about the legislation in question. But now, having concealed his financial ties, he’s made a permanant and public record of misleading by omission. If he’s an honest scholar, he’s unfairly damaged his own reputation.

According to Juliet Lapidos, writing on Slate, Viacom may be violating the law by airing Colbert’s showComedy Central while he is running for President.

Maybe Viacom plans to offer Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Giuliani, Huckabee, Kucinich, McCain, Obama, Paul, Richardson, Romney, Thompson, Gore, and other official candidates 20 minutes per night. And I believe that would be a good thing. Maybe they should set up the Comedy Central Candidates Programming network, CCCP-net - All the Candidates - All the Time. Like CSPAN but without the dry boring policy wonk stuff. After all, it is a media circus. It’s not about policy, or national security, its about shameless self-promotion, money, access, and who you are persuaded you would want to have a beer with.

We are choosing a pop-star for President. Too bad Paris and Brittney are under 35 and can’t run.

Who would Jefferson, Madison, and Washington Vote For?

Back in 2000 Nader said there ain’t no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore. I disagreed back then, and disagree today. But let’s look at some of the Republicans and Democrats today.

The Republican candidates:

• Rudy Guiliani, like Bush and Cheney, believes it is “My way or the Highway” and “if you’re not with me you’re against me.” Guiliani was on the street on Sept 12, 2001 because he ignored his advisors and put New York’s Office of Emergency Management in the World Trade Center. Is this what how we want the President to make decisions?
• When asked if his sons are serving in Iraq, Mitt Romney, who supports the war, replied “They are doing the best thing they can do for America – working to get me elected President.” Shouldn’t he offer to bring all the soldiers home from Iraq and pay them what he is paying his sons?
• Fred Thompson promises a government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists.
• Mike Huckabee lists among his qualifications that he pardoned Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones for an old driving offense. While the offense may have been blown out of proportion; is pardoning a celebrity for no other reason than to curry favor with said celebrity is a qualification for the office of President of the United States? Or is it selling access? Inequality under the law.
• John McCain, when asked about his age, responded “Thanks for the question, you little jerk … you’re drafted.”

Contrast the Liberal Democrats. John Edwards and Barak Obama have put forth plans to provide health care for all Americans, including the 1 out of 6 who have no health insurance and therefore very limited access to health care. While she hasn’t discussed the details, Hillary Clinton says “We are all saying pretty much the same thing.”

The calendars may say “21st Century” but the Republicans are still fighting the Skopes trial. The Democrats want to fund stem cell research.

During the Depression, Henry Ford kept his factories running. Similarly Thomas J. Watson, hired salesmen at IBM. Both knew they were investing for the future.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the late 1980’s, Cuba found itself in similar, if not worse, conditions. During the Soviet era, Cubans exported most of their main crop - sugar - and imported most of their food and virtually all of their meat. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, they had no export market for overpriced sugar, and thanks to U. S. foreign policy, no way to import food, fertilizer or pesticides.

According to Bill McKibben, in “Deep Economy,” rather than give up, they invested for the future. They planned, they planted crops, and while they lost weight, they succeeded. Their agricultural practices have become a model for sustainable and largely organic agriculture - they don’t use artificial fertilizer or pesticides.

Like the Cubans, the Palestinians have become orphaned children of the Soviet Union. They lost all aid from the USSR. And with the influx of immigrants to Israel from Russia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet Republics, they lost their jobs - why should Israelis hire people who want to kill them when they can hire people who want to join them? Unlike the Cubans, the Palestinians were adopted by Europe and the U. S., who showered money and other aid on them.

But money is a medium of exchange; it is only valuable when it can buy stuff. Thanks, perhaps in large part, to the Arafat’s thievery, the Palestinians have nothing.

Arafat stole every penny he could – to the tune of millions of dollars. He’s gone, but the self-proclaimed “holy men” in Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran and Syria blame the Jews for all their problems. With leadership like this they are doomed. The Palestinians need a leader like Henry Ford, Thomas J. Watson, or even Fidel Castro.

After FEMA started providing trailers to survivors of Katrina and Rita, high levels of formaldehyde were found in many of the trailers. I first learned of this from Dr. Irwin Redlener’s excellent Americans At Risk, which we’ve referred to before, and will again. Suffice it to say for present purposes that

1. There was formaldehyde in the trailers, in which were housed many people, of every age, male and female, and varied in many ways - although probably very few of them affluent.
2. The formaldehyde is dangerous -
3. And its presence in housing - above certain parts-per-million (I believe that’s in air samples - not in the building materials themselves)
4. When FEMA officials first found out that this was a possibility  - FEMA counsel instructed them not to test - and to take the position that that was not a FEMA function - fearing that with knowledge would come responsibility.

Alas, the index of Americans at Risk does not do it justice - so a discussion of Dr. Redlener’s account will have to wait for an updated post.

“an official policy of premeditated ignorance”

Congressman Henry Waxman’s description of FEMA lawyers instructing FEMA employees not to test trailers for formaldehyde.

Professor David Michaels has been providing excellent coverage of this issue at The Pump Handle, a most-excellent public health blog.

You can read Michaels’ excellent post of July 26th here;

Michaels’ two previous posts here and here.

Michaels points out that The Washington Post, in an editorial called “FEMA’S TOXIC ENVIRONMENT,” says that the Post tells FEMA director R. David Paulison that “knocking a few heads in FEMA’s general counsel’s office would be a good first step” in sending a strong signal that the beleaguered agency needs to undergo major changes.

The Post is right, of course. Michaels links to an excellent article by Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle - citing a number of legal ethics experts - who agree that the FEMA attorneys’ behavior was unethical. These attorneys include Monroe Freedman, perhaps the best-known legal ethics expert in the United States, and Ronald Rotunda, another leading ethics expert. Ask most lawyers to name nationally known legal ethics experts, and most will give you a short list - Freedman and Rotunda would, I think, be on nearly every list.

[Disclaimer: I know and admire Monroe Freedman, and have worked with him on at least one matter].

Professor Rotunda - who has the funniest law professor’s web page that I’ve seen - was assistant majority counsel to the Ervin Committee (for you young people, that was the Senate Select Committee on what’s now referred to as “The Watergate Affair”) - which might mean he was once a Democrat - but he’s also been counsel to Ken Starr while Ken Starr was Special Prosecutor, special counsel to the Department of Defense in the current administration - would, I hope, not be offended if we described his politics as “other-than-leftist.”

My point is that there’s a consensus that government lawyers should not take the position that “we don’t do those tests, because if we did we’d be responsible for knowing about the results and acting on them.” This is not a controversial proposition.

However - will these FEMA lawyers be disciplined? Our best bet is - probably not - unless someone formally brings it to the attention of legal ethics officials in a state in which any of the attorneys is licensed. Because this involves what is probably unethical conduct - but hasn’t resulted in a conviction - although it may have made some people very, very ill - the state licensing agencies (in some states, the bar association) aren’t likely to act on the basis of news reports.

We’re going to have the crack Popular Logistics research team look at the five thousand page document set released by Congressman Waxman’s committee and report back. Stay tuned.