“Minnesota showed civic resilience in a year when much of the nation saw a sharp drop in civic effort,” the report found.

Its findings show that the state continues to lead in civic participation:

1st in voter turnout, with 77.8 % of those eligible voting, 14.2% higher than the national average.
1st in citizen consciousness of having a “strong civic tradition,” with 26.5 % saying it is strong compared to other states, compared to 13.2% for the national average.
3rd in donations to charitable organizations, with 60.2% donating $25 or more.
4th in statewide volunteering, with 60.5% volunteering in the last year.
6th in working with others to fix something in the neighborhood, with 12.4%.

Despite economic problems, the state fared better than most:

72.2% nationally said they had cut back in volunteering; in Minnesota the figure was 58.6%
41.4% of Minnesotans said they had increased volunteering – compared to 27.8% for the nation as a whole.
40.3% reported being involved in community discussions about the effects of the economic recession.
50.9% of Minnesotans say they would be willing to “work less” if doing so would create more jobs for those who are unemployed.
Almost 53% say they are willing to volunteer more.

And support for efforts to increase civic participation is still high:

86.4% believe that young people should be able to earn money for college through community service projects.
80.8% believe that young people should be required to do community service in higher school.
71% believe that students in high school need to pass a new civics test.
43.7% support training opportunities to learn skills as part of volunteer activities.
15.3% value the opportunity to learn and to be challenged as the first priority for their career, while 9.3% of Minnesotans seek to make a “public benefit” as the first priority. The quarter of the population who prize civic and educational aspects of jobs contrasts to 18.7% for the nation as a whole.

In July, the Madison, Wis.–based Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit over plans to inscribe the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” motto prominently in the Washington, D.C. center, charging that to do so would be unconstitutional and not representative of all Americans, including 15 percent of the population it says are nonbelievers.

Today’s brief (pdf), filed by the American Center for Law and Justice with the U.S. District Court in Madison, calls the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s cause a “crusade,” stating that it “serves no purpose other than to waste judicial resources at a time in our Nation’s history when those resources are needed in cases involving real threats to American liberties.”

The slogans in question “in no way violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. These expressions simply echo the sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence and recognize the undeniable truth that our freedoms come from a source higher than the state…. While the First Amendment affords atheists complete freedom to disbelieve, it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in every area of public life in order to suit atheistic sensibilities.”

In addition to Bachmann, fellow Minnesota Republican Rep. John Kline and Iowa’s Steve King were also represented in the brief.

Pfc. Kham Xiong

At Ft. Hood Army Base today, President Obama honored the thirteen people killed Thursday in a shooting spree there, including St. Paul’s Pfc. Kham Xiong. Obama told of Xiong, a 23-year-old married father of three, who “came to America from Thailand as a small child” and later “followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service.” He was set to begin his first tour of duty in Afghanistan. Xiong will be buried with honors at Fort Snelling National Cemetery following a traditional three-day Hmong funeral ceremony.

A day before Veteran’s Day, Obama said that “as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us – every single American – must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before. We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.”

Full text of Obama’s remarks:

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT MEMORIAL SERVICE AT FORT HOOD

Fort Hood – III Corps

Fort Hood, Texas

1:55 P.M. CST

THE PRESIDENT:  To the Fort Hood community; to Admiral Mullen; General Casey; General Cone; Secretary McHugh; Secretary Gates; most importantly, to family, friends and members of our Armed Forces.  We come together filled with sorrow for the 13 Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war.  Yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle.  They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great state and the heart of this great American community.  This is the fact that makes the tragedy even more painful, even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that’s been left.  We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers.  You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know:  Your loved ones endure through the life of our nation.  Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched.  Their life’s work is our security, and the freedom that we all too often take for granted.  Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — that is their legacy.

Neither this country — nor the values upon which we were founded — could exist without men and women like these 13 Americans.  And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.

Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician’s assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having had a heart attack.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager.  But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment.  He’s survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.

Staff Sergeant Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light wheeled mechanic and satellite communications operator.  He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and loving father.

After retiring from the Army as a major, John Gaffaney cared for society’s most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse.  He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a captain.  He leaves behind a wife and son.

Specialist Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008, with the support of his family.  As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for.  He joined the Army after high school.  He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he reenlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience.  When her mother told her she couldn’t take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: “Watch me.”

Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service — diffuse bombs — so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

Private First Class Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher.  He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play.  He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.

Captain Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress.  He had extraordinary respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life.  He leaves behind a wife and son.

Private Francheska Velez, daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army.  When she was killed she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.

Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans.  She was a single mom who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters.  She also left behind a loving husband.

Private First Class Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child.  He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service.  He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.

These men and women came from all parts of the country.  Some had long careers in the military.  Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11.  Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those did.  Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity, the decency of those who serve, and that’s how they will be remembered.

For that same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering.  As was already mentioned, in those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pickup truck.

One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others, she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back.  Two police officers — Mark Todd and Kim Munley — saved countless lives by risking their own.  One medic — Francisco de la Serna — treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.  But this much we do know — no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.  For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice — in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country.  In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis.  In Iraq, we’re working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon.  Theirs are the tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call — the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country.  In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility.  In an era of division, they call upon us to come together.  In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it.  We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm’s way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We’re a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses.  And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln’s words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We’re a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal.  We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today.  We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality.  That’s who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day.  It’s a chance to pause, and to pay tribute — for students to learn the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes.  You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf.  But as we honor the many generations who have served, all of us — every single American — must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who’ve come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in the time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.  They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places.  They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains.  They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war.  They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and all stations — all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today’s wars, there’s not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops’ success — no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed.  But the measure of the impact of these young men and women is no less great — in a world of threats that no know borders, their legacy will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that’s extended abroad.  It will serve as testimony to the character of those who served, and the example that all of you in uniform set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to 13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home.  Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest — when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today’s servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown — it will be said that this generation believed under the most trying of tests; believed in perseverance — not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity.  We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those that we have lost.  And may God bless the United States of America.

MnIndy file photo

An aide to Rep. Michele Bachmann quit her communications position, Politico reported on Wednesday. Michelle Marston had been responsible for helping Bachmann get a copious amount of air time on cable news shows.

While Marston didn’t have much to say on the topic, an unnamed conservative Republican House member told Politico, “When your captain’s crazy, it’s time to find a new ship.”

For her part, Marston said in an email to Politico, “I’m just not talking about it, and frankly I don’t think there’s a story here.  Now, the thousands of people calling our office to tell us [they’re] coming to Capitol Hill tomorrow – that’s a story.”

Bachmann is hosting a “House Call” and urging Tea Party activists to storm the Capitol on Thursday to oppose health care reform.

Bachmann’s office has seen a fair amount of turnover since she arrived in Congress in 2006, losing more than a dozen staffers in her first two years.

“The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly,” said Ellison from the House floor on Monday. “If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America.”

Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., Sue Myrick. R-N.C., Paul Broun, R-Ga., and Trent Franks, R-Ariz., called for the investigation two weeks ago after reading a book penned by anti-Muslim authors David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry. Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.

Video and full text of Ellison’s statement:

Four of our colleagues, Reps. John Shadegg (AZ), Paul Broun (GA), Trent Franks (AZ) and Sue Myrick (NC) recently requested that the House Sergeant at Arms to launch an investigation of the civil rights group CAIR, or Council on American-Islamic Relations, to determine whether it was placing staff and interns in key Congressional offices who they fear are acting as “spies.”

This proposed investigation coincides with the launch of a book by Dave Gaubatz, an anti-Islamic activist and author of the book “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.” It features an introduction by Rep. Myrick, and was written after Gaubatz posed as an intern at CAIR in an effort to “infiltrate” the group.

These charges smack of an America of sixty years ago where lists of “un-American” agitators were identified. We should be affirming the importance of diversity and tolerance for all interns and staff who serve in Congress without suspicion of being identified as “spies.”

The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly. If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America.

We all have experienced the sting of discrimination and we know that there will be challenges ahead. But our message should be firm that the America we believe in welcomes people of all backgrounds to the U.S. Congress.

We ask these charges be disavowed and we issue a hearty welcome to interns and staff of all creeds, color, ethnicities and sexual orientation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Photo: WDCpix

WASHINGTON — A protracted and very partisan Senate skirmish has left hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans without unemployment benefits — an impasse that Democrats leaders are hoping to break this week.

They have their work cut out.

Almost five weeks after the House passed legislation to extend insurance benefits to the growing rolls of the long-term unemployed, upper-chamber leaders continue to haggle over Republican amendments. Not only do GOP leaders want to alter the way the bill is funded, but they’re insisting that a handful of politically charged amendments also get consideration, including provisions to de-fund ACORN and keep illegal immigrants out of the workplace. Since the start of the deadlock, more than 125,000 Americans have lost their unemployment insurance benefits.

The stalemate has frustrated Democratic leaders, who twice this month have attempted to pass the extension, only to be rebuffed by Republicans on the Senate floor. It’s also left a growing number of jobless Americans and their advocates indignant that lawmakers would make political hay out of their misfortunes in the middle of the worst employment crisis in a generation.

“Unemployed workers across the country are devastated and dismayed by the failure of the U.S. Senate to extend their lifeline,” Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said in a statement. “It’s shameful and callous.”

The deadlock has been something of a surprise. When the House brought up an unemployment insurance extension bill last month — a proposal granting an additional 13 months of benefits to high-unemployment states — it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The vote was 331 to 83.

Senate Democrats are pushing a more generous bill, extending benefits by 14 weeks nationwide, with an additional six weeks for those in states where unemployment rates have topped 8.5 percent. The bill applies only to the future, meaning those whose benefits expired before passage would not be eligible for backpay. The Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday afternoon on a procedural move to begin consideration of the bill.

Standing in their way, however, are GOP leaders who want to attach a series of controversial — some say unrelated — amendments. Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), for example, are pushing separate provisions to ensure that ACORN doesn’t receive federal funds. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) have offered amendments related to the Wall Street bailout. And Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) wants to make permanent the controversial E-Verify program, which screens newly hired workers in order to weed out illegal immigrants.

The offices of Corker, Thune, Vitter and Johanns did not respond to requests for comment. A Sessions aide said Friday that the E-Verify amendment is definitely still a part of the discussion.

Whether those provisions have any place beside the underlying bill depends on which side you ask.

An aide for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the amendments are intended to delay the process, just as Republicans tried to do earlier in the year when they offered similar provisions alongside, for example, the economic stimulus bill. “It’s kind of from the same playbook,” the aide said. “If they were seriously trying to do this, they wouldn’t be trying to add unrelated amendments.”

Yet GOP leaders dispute that claim, arguing that the primary sticking point is the proposed funding mechanism, not the underlying push to extend benefits.

To pay for their $2.4 billion legislation, Democrats are proposing to extend a small portion of the federal unemployment tax that employers pay on behalf of workers. That tax — currently eight-tenths of 1 percent of the first $7,000 employers pay for each worker — is slated to drop to six-tenths of 1 percent at the end of the year. The Democrats’ proposal would keep the current rate in place through June of 2011, effectively costing employers $14 per employee annually — or $21 per worker over the life of the bill.

An aide for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the additional tax would prevent small businesses from hiring new workers, effectively undermining the purpose of the bill at the expense of the unemployed folks it’s designed to help. The Republicans want to fund the extension using unspent stimulus money instead.

Complicating the picture for Democrats, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) has offered an amendment to extend the popular $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers through next June, while also expanding eligibility to include folks with higher incomes. Additionally, the Isakson wants to apply the credit to all homebuyers, not just first-timers.

Faced with record budget deficits, the Obama administration has been wary of extending the tax credit. As a result, Democrats have offered a counter-offer to Isakson: a four-month extension of the $8,000 credit, followed by incremental decreases — $2,000 a pop — for each of the three subsequent trimesters. Like the existing benefit, only first-time homebuyers would qualify.

The Reid aide said Friday that no agreement has been reached.

The delay has consequences. Each day the Senate idles, another 7,000 Americans lose their unemployment insurance benefits, according to figures released by the National Employment Law Project this month. By year’s end, the group estimates, roughly 1.3 million people will have exhausted their benefits unless Congress steps in.

In light of the congressional inaction, some states have taken it upon themselves to extend unemployment insurance using emergency state funds. Oregon, for example, tapped into a surplus earlier this month in announcing a 13-week extension. The funds are expected to benefit 6,000 state residents.

Faced with budget crises of their own, however, most states don’t have the luxury of extending these benefits. It’s up to Washington, advocates say, to fill in the gap.

“It’s time for the Senate to do right by the families hardest hit by the recession,” Owens said. “The Senate needs to do whatever it takes, working weekends included, to make this happen.”

SuperFreakonomics and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Photos: HarperCollins, WDCpix

The early reviews for “SuperFreakonomics” have been harsh. The book, wrote Brad Johnson in The Guardian, is a “super freaking mess.” According to environmental journalist Joe Romm, it contains “many, many pieces of outright nonsense” and “major howlers.” In The New Republic, Brad Plumer attacked the book for “garden variety ignorance.” And all of those pans appeared before the book actually hit the shelves this week.

Authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner didn’t face anything like this three years ago when they published “Freakonomics,” a surprise smash that sold 4 million copies. Unlike that book, which was based entirely on Levitt’s economic research from the University of Chicago, “SuperFreakonomics” is a guided tour of other peoples’ contrarian research and ideas. The final chapter deals with global warming, characterizing the beliefs of pessimistic environmentalists as “religious fervor,” and arguing that the climate change solutions proposed by Al Gore and many Democrats are ineffective and unworkable. It repeats claims that environmental journalists have debated or debunked for years. As a result, the authors are getting some early support from climate change skeptics who feel that attitudes toward their stances are getting brighter.

“It reminds me of what happened when Michael Crichton wrote ‘State of Fear,’” said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, which gets some of its funding from the energy industry. “The problem for the left is that there are still some people who don’t toe the party line who have megaphones. And anyone who has a megaphone, they’re going to go after.”

Ebell’s reference to “State of Fear” demonstrated just how meaningful “Freakonomics” could be to people who challenge conventional wisdom about climate change. The late author’s novel, published in 2004, cast as villains environmentalists and eco-terrorists who were perpetrating hoaxes to maintain their power. Coming after Crichton had made some well-publicized and much-maligned remarks skeptical of climate change science, the book was pilloried by environmentalists. It sold more than 1.5 million copies anyway.

In the years since, many climate change skeptics feel that the environmental movement has lost ground culturally and politically. A Pew Research poll released on Thursday found that the number of Americans who believed that man-made global warming was occurring, or that a hotter planet was a serious problem, had fallen precipitously. In April 2008, 71 percent of Americans said that global warming was happening, and 47 percent said it was man-made. In the new poll, only 57 percent of Americans said any global warming was happening, and 36 percent said it was man-made. Many skeptics are taking that poll as a sign that their message is getting through.

“There’s just so much … skepticism now,” said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee and one of the most prominent skeptics of climate change in Washington. In making the case that Americans are growing more skeptical, Dempsey said, “the Pew poll is one data point. This book is another data point.”

Levitt and Dubner have engaged their critics in the environmental movement, accusing them of “smears” for suggesting that the climate change chapter of “SuperFreakonomics” makes them “global warming denialists.”

“I think anyone who actually reads that chapter will come away with a better fact-based understanding of the actual issues surrounding global warming,” Levitt told TWI. “That said, I also think that partisans love to cherry-pick, regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on.”

Indeed, the climate change skeptics who are excited about “SuperFreakonomics” and the environmentalists who are criticizing the book are focusing on some of the same material. The controversial chapter opens with ironic quotes from Newsweek and New York Times articles from the 1970s that published frightening, if slapdash, research about “global cooling.” That phony scare is a favorite of climate change skeptics, who have attempted to bring it back from obscurity in books and in films like the just-released “Not Evil Just Wrong.”

“The man who came up with that theory, Stephen Snyder, is now one of the people scaring everyone about global warming,” said Martin Hertzberg. The retired meteorologist, who lives in Colorado, has been skeptical of man-made global warming for decades. He has converted the liberal journalist Alexander Cockburn to the belief that, as Cockburn quoted him saying, “the greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards,” while getting into scraps with environmental journalists like George Monbiot.

“The idea of man-made global warming is fear-mongering and hysteria,” said Hertzberg. “There are a large number of know-nothing journalists and environmental lobbyists working hard on this, and they’re completely wrong. Al Gore is not a meteorologist. He knows nothing about science.”

Levitt and Dubner do not challenge all of Gore’s arguments about climate change science. What they do challenge is the idea that man’s use of carbon is speeding along a major catastrophe, and that something like cap-and-trade could be the answer. “It’s illogical,” they write, “to believe in a carbon-induced warming apocalypse and believe that such an apocalypse can be averted simply by curtailing new carbon emissions.” Prominent skeptics told TWI that such an argument, from such high-placed experts is long overdue.

“They’re absolutely right,” said Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Look at the numbers. If every nation that has obligations under the Kyoto Protocols adopted the restrictions of Waxman-Markey [cap-and-trade legislation], you’d see a 7 percent drop in warming by 2100, about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Michaels, who has not read the book but is planning to pick it up, saluted Levitt and Dubner for tackling an issue that few popular economists touch. “It’s about time that people who do popular economics tell people the truth,” he said. “Fortunately, the planet is not warming.”

While Levitt and Dubner do not actually argue that the planet is not getting warmer, some skeptics are hopeful that the book could direct people to studies that suggest that. “I think it is very important to question the [environmentalist] true believers,” said Patrick Moore, an early member of Greenpeace. Now, as the chairman of Greenspirit Strategies, he does some work for energy companies and supports new nuclear power. “[It's important] as they display all the qualities of doomsday fanatics. There is ample reason to be skeptical, including the fact that the world has been warmer than today for most of the history of life, and the fact that CO2 has been much higher than today through most of the history of life.”

The controversial phrasing and criticism in “SuperFreakonomics” is in the book to make another point. Levitt and Dubner present research into geoengineering, a Gordian Knot solution to a warming planet that, for example, would replicate the effect that a massive eruption of volcano ash can have in making the planet cooler. It’s not a popular idea among some skeptics, who argue that bogus data is responsible for much of the global warming panic. One of those skeptics is Ross McKitrick, a professor at Canada’s University of Guelph whose research suggests that numbers suggesting a spike in global temperature are out of whack. He was hopeful that “SuperFreakonomics” could cut through the “groupthink and political correctness” and expose environmental journalists such as Joe Romm as dishonest activists who can’t accept criticism.

“He’s a former Clinton staffer who runs an attack blog funded by Soros money,” said McKitrick of Romm, whose ClimateProgress blog is a project of the Center for American Progress. “He’s only respected by people who approve of his inflammatory tactics and relentless politicization of the issue.”

Climate change skeptics are excited by the prospect of the general public reading Levitt and Dubner, but they’re expecting the authors to remain targets of an active and desperate green movement. “It will make people think and say, yeah, that’s right, it doesn’t make sense to do this,” said Ebell. “But that will just make the environmentalists even angrier.”

Phelim McAleer, the director of “Not Evil Just Wrong,” said his movie had begun to inspire protests and interruptions. His advice for the authors: Develop tough skin.

“Be prepared for it to get worse before it’s going to better,” said McEleer. “They don’t like questions, as Al Gore showed. Enviromentalist journalists are environmentalists, and they will always side with the environmental establishment. Don’t expect fairness from journalists.”

Rep. Betty McCollum

Rep. Betty McCollum is spearheading an effort to get nonprofit employees included in the health reform benefits being planned for small businesses. She has penned a letter to congressional leaders urging them to consider nonprofits on a level playing field with small businesses.

A letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer reads, “Nearly all nonprofit organizations are struggling to provide health insurance coverage for their employees. These mainly small employers experience the same higher costs and limited options as their for-profit, small business counterparts.”

The letter has been signed by 22 House members including Minnesota Reps. James Oberstar, Keith Ellison and Tim Walz.

Minnesota’s nonprofits employ nearly 300,000 people, or about 10 percent of Minnesota’s workforce.

Current health care reform plans include tax breaks, subsidies and access to a health insurance exchange for small businesses. If McCollum is successful, those benefits will be extended to nonprofits.

“The millions of Americans who work in the nonprofit sector must be included in health care reform,” McCollum said in a statement. “It’s only fair that nonprofit organizations receive comparable treatment to the small business sector in health care reform legislation. I am encouraged that so many of my colleagues from across the country have joined me in this effort to ensure the benefits of health care reform reach the men and women working for nonprofit organizations.”

Photo: iStockphoto

A watchdog group, Stimulating Broadband (SB), which keeps tabs on stimulus spending on broadband infrastructure, says Minnesota is the only state holding back details about how the state plans to spend its broadband stimulus money. Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s administration says it doesn’t have to disclose the information. It’s the second time in two months that Pawlenty has come under criticism over broadband policy. Minnesota submitted a list of funding priorities to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) detailing how the state plans to spend stimulus money to expand broadband coverage statewide. But Pawlenty’s office won’t reveal which projects — which it selected from a master list of applications received from counties, townships, cities, businesses and nonprofits across Minnesota — it’s recommending for funding.

The governor is invoking a state statute that says applications about nonpublic businesses are private until funding decisions are made. As the Minnesota Progressive Project noted on Tuesday, many of those applications have been made public, including one of the state’s largest counties, Ramsey County.

Diane Wells of the Telecommunications Division of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, told SB:

“Minnesota has undertaken its [Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program] evaluation process following guidelines the state has for reviewing RFPs. Under that process, the results of our evaluation would not be made publicly available until the completion of the full process, which for purposes of the BTOP broadband grants, we have defined as when the NTIA issues the awards. Thus the recommendation from Minnesota to the NTIA is not a public document at this time.”

The second time SB asked for Minnesota’s prioritized list, it received a response from a government attorney. In an email, Alberto Quintela, Jr., wrote, “The Minnesota Department of Commerce has been informed by the Minnesota Department of Administration that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.591, subd.4 (2008), documents generated in response to the NTIA’s communication to the states on the opportunity to comment on grant proposals submitted under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) are protected nonpublic data until completion of the federal evaluation process and the awards are made.”

When asked for comment on the case, Jeneba Jalloh Ghatt of the Ghatt Law Group told SB in an email that it is strange for Minnesota to be so secretive — especially since every other state SB has approached has supplied the information.

“At the outset, the state of Minnesota has to realize that others have elected to release their rankings. Given that it was never a secret and was quite ‘public’ that NTIA sought the rankings from all of the states in the first place, it is unclear why the ultimate rankings would be considered ‘non public.’”

“It is also unclear whether Minnesota can keep the letter hidden for long,” Ghatt wrote. “At top, the decision to treat the NTIA response as non-public fuels a growing debate over whether States preferred public and government projects over private ones. It would appear that Minnesota could be shielding its rankings from the same type of criticisms other states are facing.”

That criticism comes as Minnesota selected a telecom-backed group to conduct the state’s broadband mapping, which could, in turn, benefit the telecom industry. That decision was made without the input of the state’s citizen broadband task force, whose members were appointed by Pawlenty.

Photo: Ryan Bushby, Wikimedia Commons

A Gallup poll conducted at the beginning of October shows that more Americans support the legalization of marijuana than ever before — even if the majority still think it should be illegal.

Forty-four percent of Americans said they think marijuana should be legal, while 54 percent said it should stay illegal. The number who support legalization has doubled in the last 20 years, whereas in the late 1980s only 23 percent supporting legalization.

A majority of respondents living in the West said they would approve of marijuana being legal in their state (53 percent to 46 percent) while the Midwest residents showed the largest disapproval of having marijuana legal in their state with 64 percent rejecting it.