Perry Giving Up the (Holy) Ghost

Governor Perry is knocking off campaign events today to attend to the wildfires that have ravaged Texas. The fires have claimed two lives and hundreds of homes since they were spread by wind gusts connected to Tropical Storm Lee this weekend. Lee dumped roughly 12 inches of rain on New Orleans but delivered only driving wind into Texas.

The winds come after a year-long drought in Texas that has caused huge economic woes for farmers. Now the tinder-dry brush across the state is becoming fuel for uncontained fires. As Lee turned North East away from Texas, the drought-stricken Texas has to wonder about their bad luck.

The Texas drought last attracted national attention when Rick Perry proclaimed a day of prayer for rain in April. Since then, rainfall in the lonestar state has remained anemic. In a normal year, San Antonio area gets roughly 14.5 inches of rain between April 21st and September 5th; this year, only 3.53 inches. The lack of rain even after Perry's proclamation for prayer should be a spiritual embarrassment for the Governor. Tropical Storm Lee even veered North East away from Texas, keeping the Texan plains dry.

Droughts are becoming more common along Texas's latitude, a process of desertification that is consistent with models of global climate change caused by anthropogenic carbon increases. Perry, of course, denies that climate science has anything to do with reality. So meeting Perry on his own terms is tempting: Is God punishing Texas with severe drought?

Perry's lack of religious sincerity and political stances against social welfare for God's children are possible targets of God's wrath. But many states have had 'Christian right' anti-worker and anti-poor governors for a decade. Texas uniquely endures the taunting spectale of a tropical storm bringing fire instead of rain.

The most plausible theological account is that the fires are divine punishment for Perry's wanton execution of innocents. Cameron Todd Willingham's execution at the hands of Gov Perry is a particularly haunting case. Not only was the condemned almost certainly innocent, but he was wrongly convicted for arson and refused clemency because of Perry's lack of belief in the scientific method that had thrown considerable doubt upon the jury's verdict.

It's terrible that 2 people would have to die and hundreds of homes burn to get Perry to atone for his sins. Let's pray that Perry does reform, and that the plagues on Texas will stop.

Honest Question

The Washington Times tries a new attack on NPR, spinning off of the serial felon James O'Keefe's punkumentary propaganda:NPR officers compare deniers of climate change to birthers and flat earth believers.

Don't bother reading the article (I didn't; the website's ads were too annoying). Focus on the headline that the Washington Times provided, which I copied verbatim. Here is the allegation again:

[] compare [climate change deniers] to birthers and flat earth believers

Is there anything in that comparison that isn't apt?

Please, if you can answer that question honestly, or if you know anybody who can, send them here to comment. Again, your prompt is "Is there any aspect of the comparison between 'deniers of climate change' and 'birthers and flat earth believers' that is inappropriate?"

Or is the attack simply that NPR employs people?

Climate Change as Public Nuisance

In case you missed it, the New York Times summarized the Supreme Court case on climate change as a public nuisance, oral argument scheduled for April 19th. Several states and conservation outfits have sued carbon-intensive utilities under federal common law alleging that the companies are behaving as a public

There are a variety of hurdles to the lawsuit. Paramount among these is the contention that by creating the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, Congres has preempted the judiciary's authority to hear environmental cases. Before the passage of the afore mentioned statutes, environmental regulation was largely fashioned by the courts in an ad hoc process. Plaintiffs would prove that a polluter was damaging their land and sue (private nuisance). In cases of wide-spread damage, public officials might initiate suit for the good of the community (public nuisance). The common law provided for relief fashioned for the two parties before the judge, who possessed a wide array of tools to mitigate, enjoin, or compensate the parties as eh or she saw fit. Plaintiffs would be able to recover damages directly from the polluters, allowing the injured party to rectify specific harms. Because pollution became so widespread and a cause for national concern with the publication of Silent Spring (Rachel Carson, 1962). While environmental regulation proceeded in a piecemeal fashion, the public demanded an active federal agency to prevent environmental abuses, protect endangered species, and restore spoiled land for public use. Federal environmental regulations originated in an attempt to augment and standardize existing the pollution control regime both among the states and the courts.

The states are often called the laboratories of democracy, but the courts are less often credited as the petri dishes of policy.