China's dirty secret

We've been talking a lot here on the In Box recently about environmental policy, the pros, the cons, the economic costs.

A new study released today suggests that China is literally burying itself under the toxic waste of its mega-industrial revolution.

The study, reported in the New York Times, was conducted by China's government, and suggests that the world's most populous country will eventually have to rethink it's economic policies fundamentally.

“We believed we needed to cut our emissions in half, but today’s data means a lot more work needs to be done,” Mr. Ma Jun [director of the Institute of Public and Environmental affairs ]said.

One interesting aspect of this study is the amount of agricultural and farm pollution identified as most problematic.

The extent of agricultural waste could prove a more intractable problem than the many factories dumping effluent into China’s rivers and lakes.

“When it’s millions of farmers, it’s more difficult to bring it under control,” Mr. Ma said.

Steven Ma, of the Beijing office of Greenpeace, said that the government’s decision to calculate and release figures for agriculture would start to have an effect on the policy debate over water pollution in China. “Everybody knew there was a problem with agricultural pollution in China, but now there are numbers,” he said.

Politico predicts another GOP rift in NY 23

The online news magazine Politico says the rift between Conservatives and Republicans may shape this November's race for the NY-23 seat now held by Democrat Bill Owens.

According to Politico, Lake Placid accountaint Doug Hoffman will run again and:

his leading backer, Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long, told POLITICO that he refuses to endorse any candidate other than Hoffman — raising the prospect of another contest in which a fracture on the right enables Democratic Rep. Bill Owens to skate to victory.

According to Long, Hoffman already has the Conservative Party's endorsement and other Republicans need not apply.

This, despite the fact that Hoffman lives outside the district. Politico quotes Republican Will Barclay, who says he's interested in the race:

“One person can’t say who’s going to be the candidate. There’s a primary situation, and the voters should have the right to say who they want to represent them in a general election,” Barclay said. “We’ll have a better chance to know the candidates with it being a primary instead of a special election.”

Is objective journalism dead?

The last few days, I've been thinking a lot about the ways that NCPR and our journalism are perceived.

I had a particularly ugly conversation with someone in the environmental community.

We also took a lot of flack from anti-Park Agency folks, convinced that we're carrying water for the state.

A widely-shared view seems to be that there's little faith -- and maybe little interest -- in a news organization that tries to be objective.

For some, the fact that we have 'public radio' in our name is a badge of shame, a clear sign of a lefty-liberal agenda.

Others are frustrated that we're not playing an advocacy role.

And some just plain aren't buying it: They believe that the whole concept of independence and balance are smokescreens for a hidden agenda.

My own views on this are (not surprisingly) pretty different. I'm an old school news guy. (I started working as a reporter in 1984...)

I work hard to make sure that my loyalty is to the story, to the facts, to fairness, not to the agendas of the people in my stories.

(I could go on about this, but I'll say simply that I love it when my initial ideas about an issue turn out to be wrong. I love surprises and complexity. That's why I'm a journalist, really.)

But a growing number of critics -- including some of the best media critics in the country -- say objectivity just isn't possible.

Bias is human, they say. We all have agendas, favorites, prejudices.

This particular debate comes at a time when the North Country has a thriving and multifaceted journalism culture.

New blogs, magazines, TV, newspapers, AM radio, a medley of different public radio stations offer a rich discourse about our lives and arguments.

So what do you think? Do you prefer your news sources to come with a particular and openly-stated agenda?

Or do you think "objective" is still a valid ideal, something you want in the mix?

CTV Ottawa Studios lost in blaze

A fire early Sunday morning destroyed the news studios of CTV Ottawa, formerly known as CJOH.


No injuries were reported. Damages were estimated to be at least $2.5 million. The cause of the fire remains under investigation.

CTV is scrambling to carry on and some operations have been moved to space at the Byward Market.

The fire came just before a lull in local programing due to extensive coverage of the Vancouver Olympics. Pre-existing plans to move to newer facilities are being accelerated.

The most significant loss may be archival. The studios opened in 1961, producing an array of national and local programing. In that respect, the video record of this city and its newsmakers has been greatly reduced.

Sharing the news by email, someone sent me this observation: “It's a compelling case for off-site backups.”

That can be awfully hard to manage, but it's not a bad idea, where crucial stuff is concerned.

Best of luck to the 100 employees of CTV Ottawa as they rally to recover from this blow.

Is Governor Paterson on his way out?

As readers of this blog know, I'm sort of a guarded fan of Governor David Paterson.

He's one of the clumsiest career politicians I've ever observed, but his leadership through the fiscal crisis has struck me as honest and forthright.

In the opening days of his accidental governorship, he admitted to past marital infidelities and other indiscretions, in an effort to clear the post-Spitzerian air.

But for days now, a kind of deathwatch has been underway in Albany. According to rumor, wink and nudge, the New York Times is preparing some sort of expose.

It's sort of a funhouse mirror situation, stripped of all the fun.

Here's the Albany Times-Union quoting a Daily News blogger talking to the Huffington Post about a story she's never seen (and, of course, now I'm quoting the T-U...)

The chatter has created a surreal world at the Capitol where reporters are being quoted talking about an article that has been read by no one outside of the Times.

The Daily News' Liz Benjamin tells the Huffington Post it's "far worse than his acknowledged extramarital affair with a former state employee."

Surreal, indeed. While Albany burns, we appear to be perched on the precipice of more sexual and marital melodrama.

Unfortunately, neither the Governor nor the Times have stepped forward to debunk all of this, which lends the rumors some credibility.

If so, it's more than heartbreaking. It is frightening.

At best we will face another ten months under a governor so weakened that crucial decisions will be deferred.

At worst, a Paterson resignation would leave us governed by Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch.

Who the heck is he? We have no idea. (Full confession, I had to Google Ravitch to make sure I got his name right...)

If this goes down, our accidental governor will have been replaced by the anonymous governor.

Why tort reform makes people nervous

Conservatives have assailed Democrats for not including some sort of tort reform in the health care reform bill.

Some health care experts are convinced that frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards are forcing doctors out of business, or causing them to practice expensive "defensive" medicine.

(Most experts say this is a tiny fraction of the healthcare cost problem.)

I'm comfortable with the idea of tort reform, but before we go too far down that road we need to make sure that far more information is available to consumers about their doctors, their local hospitals and nursing homes.

This case in Texas illustrates the level of secrecy that often surrounds physicians, medical boards, and patient complaints.

When nurse Anne Mitchell filed an anonymous complaint with the state medical board against a local doctor, he actually went to the police.

She now faces criminal charges.

As the New York Times reported:

The prosecutor said he would show that Mrs. Mitchell had a history of making “inflammatory” statements about Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr. and intended to damage his reputation when she reported him last April to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines doctors.

Mrs. Mitchell counters that as an administrative nurse, she had a professional obligation to protect patients from what she saw as a pattern of improper prescribing and surgical procedures — including a failed skin graft that Dr. Arafiles performed in the emergency room, without surgical privileges.

He also sutured a rubber tip to a patient’s crushed finger for protection, an unconventional remedy that was later flagged as inappropriate by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Lawsuits may, in fact, be an inappropriate and costly way to hold doctors accountable when they make mistakes or act unprofessionally.

But in many states, it remains nearly impossible to find out if your doctor has faced complaints or sanctions for medical errors.

Do a Google search for medical errors and you'll find that it's hardly a marginal concern.

This from the US Department of Health and Human Services:

"Medical errors are one of the Nation's leading causes of death and injury. A recent report by the Institute of Medicine estimates that as many as 44,000 to 98,000 people die in U.S. hospitals each year as the result of medical errors. This means that more people die from medical errors than from motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS."

Common sense tort reform is a good idea.

But with it should come clear and unambiguous sunshine laws that give consumers all the information they need about the safety records of their doctors.

Does NCPR want to "pauperize" the people of the North Country?

Corrected: Mr. Dicker points out, accurately, that he said "pauperize" and not "pulverize." I've corrected this word throughout the text.

Fred Dicker is one of Albany's most influential conservative journalists, host of a closely watched AM radio talk show and a political writer for the New York Post.

On his show Friday, Mr. Dicker argued that there are

"extremely wealth elitist types from the New York City area who have a vested interest in pauperizing the people of the Adirondacks to benefit themselves, their second and third homes, their property ownership. It's a class warfare against the people of the Adirondacks."

His guest, Essex farmer Salim "Sandy" Lewis, replied, "Mr. Dicker, you're only 100% right. I'm astounded to hear you say it. But I want to make it clear to you. I know who they are."

"Tell us!" Mr. Dicker urged.

Pretty exciting stuff. So who are the villains of this "plot for the pauperization of the people of the Adirondacks," to quote Mr. Dicker?

"The lead of this started with Nelson Rockefeller," Lewis began. Which is pretty standard fare.

The Republican governor has never been popular with those who disapprove of the Park Agency and its rules.

Mr. Lewis then went on to blast Peter Paine from Willsboro, president of Champlain National Bank and one of the co-creators of the modern APA.

All very fine and good, but it's sort of old hat, ancient history. Those bones have been chewed pretty well since the 1970s

Mr. Dicker wanted fresh meat: "We only have about three minutes, so get to the heart of it, if you would!"

Then Mr. Lewis popped his guns at one of the true villains, the nefarious, the underhanded...NCPR?

"They formed these charities and there are a number of them, and one of them sadly -- and you better give them time -- is Brian Mann, Ellen Rocco, and Martha Foley at North Country Public Radio. They're in the middle of this. These charities draw from the same anonymous donors."

Yikes. That's pretty strong. Nonsense, of course, utterly ridiculous, but exciting.

I always feel a little awkward responding to stuff like this. It's just that silly. But I suppose it's necessary to clarify a few points.

1. Mr. Lewis is apparently convinced that NCPR is part of some cabal, but he has never questioned the accuracy of our reporting. He's always welcome to do so.

2. The largest source of income for North Country Public Radio is local memberships, from North Country people -- the vast majority under $100. The second largest source of income are local businesses who purchase "underwriting" on our airwaves.

3. Mr. Lewis is correct that some of our major donors are also donors to or members of environmental groups. We have a "firewall" between fundraising and our journalism that is completely impervious. There is no fudging of this line, none.

4. I love complicated, thorny, controversial stories. NCPR wants those stories from me. If I ever find evidence of a plot to "pulverize" my neighbors in the Adirondacks, we will claw and fight to be the first to tell you about it.

But that story has to be factual and fair. AM talk radio blather, ad hominem attacks, and conspiracy theories won't cut it.

Your thoughts and comments are welcome below.

Something to look forward to

Everybody likes a good lap-sit, right? (Not a lap dance.)

According to Clarkson University student Kallie Desmond, a lap-sit - or "unsupported circle" in more formal circles - "is about building trust and relationships in supporting each other by building a bridge". Who doesn't need that?

The students at Clarkson are trying to break the record (wherever that record is kept) for the largest lap-sit, raising money for the American Cancer Society in the process.

The big day is April 17th. So why are they talking about this now? It takes awhile to confirm 4,000 people (just under half the population of the entire village of Potsdam). To register, contact the Leadership Corps at clarksonlapsit@gmail.com.

Memo to women: Don't give up your day job

I've been reading with something like amusement -- and something like horror -- excerpts of Lori Gottlieb's new book.

"Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough" is a manifesto arguing that uppity, snarky women should get over their pickiness and get themselves hitched.

She describes this life plan as “taking the best available option and appreciating it.”

Others have ripped Ms. Gottlieb's basic premise, pointing out that educated, successful women are actually doing pretty well on the marriage front.

They're marrying later, but more of their marriages are lasting.

My recoil from this book comes because it surfaces at the same time that an epic number of women who "settled" are now doing the walk of shame.

Jenny Sanford, wife of the South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, is out with a tell-all about her marital experiences. And boy did she ever SETTLE.

She writes that Gov. Sanford insisted on removing the "faithful" part from their wedding vows.

"In retrospect, I suppose I might have seen this as a sign that Mark wasn't fully committed to me, and with the benefit of the knowledge I have about Mark now, I could point to this moment as a clear sign of things to come."

Meanwhile, Gayle Haggard is making the rounds, talking about her preacher husband Ted's forays into gay prostitution and drug abuse.

She now says his adultery was the "answer to our prayers," which suggests that she's taken the art of rationalization to a new level.

Also slogging through the headlines is Elizabeth Edwards -- now separated from her husband -- who settled so hard for her cheating husband John that she nearly helped saddle the nation with him.

More? Who can erase the harrowing image of Silda Spitzer standing next to Eliot at that brutal press conference when he admitted visiting a prostitute?

And how about Hillary Rodham Clinton? The scoured look on her face when she realized the depths of her husband's deceptions.

The unifying theme behind all these women isn't just that they "settled."

It's that they all had strong, successful independent lives before grabbing their man's coattails.

The lesson here is that settling might be the right choice for some women, but at the end of the day...don't give up your day job.

Does the North Country have a private sector future?

NCPR has reported for years on what many economists call "rural socialism."

This is the growing trend of small towns across the U.S. that rely on taxpayers, along with state and Federal agencies, for nearly every aspect of their economies.

Here in the North Country, more than half of the take-home salaries are provided directly by governments.

When you add in the 10% of local residents on unemployment, and our elderly residents on Social Security and Medicaid, there's not a lot of entrepreneurship left.

Yesterday, I was in Lyon Mountain for a rally to save the local correctional facility.

Despite an $8.2 billion dollar state budget deficit, and what state officials describe as plummeting inmate counts, there's a strong push to save three prisons in the North Country.

(Unions and some local officials dispute the Paterson administration's claims that a growing number of prison beds are empty. They say the state is still 'double-bunking,' a practice some describe as risky.)

The motivation is obvious: Since the 1960s, many parts of the region have been devastated by factory, mill and mine closings.

But interestingly, I hear very little discussion of trying to restart a private-sector, capitalist economy in these towns.

The assumption -- the conviction -- is that if state and local government jobs go, nothing will ever replace them.

That may be true. But what is the alternative? Is it appropriate, sustainable, ethical for our region to continue to rely on taxpayers (many of them living elsewhere) for our jobs?

And another question:

Have these prisons fostered prosperity?

When I drive through Dannemora and Lyon Mountain, it's hard to see that the corrections jobs have sparked much of a retail or service economy.

These are hard questions. And it's especially hard to wrestle with them at a time when many people are angry and afraid.

Lyon Mountain is an incredibly proud community. Many families have held on in the community through very hard times.

But it's still important to talk about this openly. Your comments welcome.

Was it a mistake to build the Seaway?

This weekend, author and journalist Jeff Alexander is the keynote speaker at Save The River's Winter Weekend at the Clayton Opera House. Alexander wrote a pretty comprehensive book about the history of invasive species in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River called Pandora's Locks. Invasive species have cost the region billions of dollars. An interview I did with him aired a couple days ago. Listen to it here.

I didn't have broadcast time to include a really interesting part of the interview, where Alexander poses the question above. Was it a mistake to build the Seaway?

Canada and most Midwestern ports would definitely answer no. So would most people in St. Lawrence County, where the Seaway employs a lot of people to work at the locks and operations center in Massena.

Alexander says "it was built for all the right reasons and all the best intentions." No one could have predicted the Seaway was opening a dangerous and unprecedented vector of infection for the Great Lakes eocsystem.

But the Seaway is a huge underachiever, economically speaking. Foreign freighter traffic is just a sliver of overall shipping traffic on the Great Lakes - most ships are "lakers", not "salties".

So why not close the Seaway "entrance", make sure new invasive species don't enter, and just off-load foreign cargo or foreign-bound cargo at the docks in Montreal?

The National Academy of Sciences tackled this question in 2008, determining the Seaway was worth keeping open, but acknowledging that it is "not vital" to the economic health of North America.

Listen to Jeff Alexander talk about the economic, environmental, and social trade-offs regarding the Seaway. He claims shutting down the Seaway would actually *create* 1,000 jobs in the Great Lakes region, but maybe also busier roads and more pollution:



It's fascinating to think about all the variables in making a decision about the future of the Seaway: greenhouse gases, invasive species, clogged roads, maritime technology, national and regional identity.

What do you think? Should the Seaway - a waterway that's intimately intertwined with the history and culture of the North Country - be shut down?

NY-23 GOP already hitting a dull roar

It's incredible to think the Republican primary is still more than a half a year away, and candidates are already on the attack.

Yesterday, Doug Hoffman - who lost to Democrat Bill Owens by 3,600 last fall - basically promised a three-way race in the general election if he doesn't win the primary. Asked by the Albany Times-Union if he'd support the GOP winner if it weren't him, he answered, "that's not even a consideration".

Assemblyman Will Barclay (remember him?) from Pulaski lashed out, calling Hoffman "arrogant" in a press release:

How dare Doug Hoffman suggest that the will of the people is not even worth considering? An election is by definition a question, and you don’t get the answer until the people step into the privacy of the voting booth and make their determination. We candidates can only ask, but it’s the voters who decide.

This all brings glee to Democrats, of course.

Republicans still hold a huge enrollment advantage in the 23rd district. And because last fall's crazy special election had so many factors that made it unique, this is a seat that's very much in play.

The prospect of another Dem-GOP-Conservative three-way race must make Congressman Bill Owens very happy in Washington.

How do you drive a luge sled?

The New York Times has an awesome video, which explains the technology and the technique of a two-man luge sled.

As we prep for Vancouver 2010, here's your homework for the day!

What if we do nothing on health care?

As I've written here before, the Democratic health care reform bill is a mess. In an interview with Bill O'Reilly this week, Jon Stewart called it "lobbyist gruel."

That's a pretty apt description, I think. Instead of coming up with fresh new ideas, Democratic leaders pandered and compromised until they had a bad bill on their hands.

But not passing this stinker of a bill might be worse than doing nothing. Here's the take-away from a Wall Street Journal piece published yesterday:

The impact of not reforming health care could be more dire than first thought. WSJ's David Wessel says there will be more people uninsured and greater costs to employers. As for reducing the deficit? Forget about it.

Conversation among Washington wonks, corporate chieftains and health-care executives isn't any longer about how "health reform" will work in practice. It's about what happens if nothing happens.

The bottom line is that the status quo is no longer acceptable. Republicans may be right to oppose this bill, but they're wrong to suggest that we can afford to do nothing.

Last month, the Watertown Daily Times asked North Country Republicans for their views on health care reform.

Will Barclay repeated the GOP talking point that America "has the best healthcare system in the world."

Sadly, that's no longer true and every independent health care expert in the country will agree.

The numbers of uninsured are rising daily; we have the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world; and the system that most of us use is collapsing under its own spiraling costs.

Here in the North Country, we're likely to see nursing homes close this year, and hospitals will teeter on the brink.

It's hard to see a clear path forward out of this mess. But the Democrats, who control Congress, can take a couple of basic steps now.

1. They should buck their own special interests by incorporating good conservative ideas, including common sense tort reform and inter-state commerce.

2. They should implement profit caps on any insurance policies which Americans are forced to buy under the new law.

3. They should create a new, independent non-profit -- neither corporate nor government -- that can provide basic, low-cost health insurance.

4. They should jettison for now the public option.

Many of the other elements of the Democratic bill are non-controversial and would be widely popular with the American people.

Those pieces include first steps toward cost containment and reform of the most egregious insurance company behavior.

It's clear now that we won't get the 'big fix' this year on healthcare. But with the status quo crumbling around us, we need to make some progress.

As the Journal article makes clear, the alternatives are pretty dire.

Essex farmer Sandy Lewis prevails again in APA fight

Essex County farmer and former Wall Street executive Salim "Sandy" Lewis won another round in court yesterday.

According to an article in the New York Times, a state judge has ordered the Adirondack Park Agency to pay all of Lewis's legal fees and expenses following a lengthy court fight.

Mr. Lewis has asked for more than $200,000 in legal fees, but the amount that the state will actually have to pay is to be determined. Judge Richard B. Meyer, an acting State Supreme Court justice, set a hearing on the issue for Feb. 26.

The Times article quotes APA spokesman Keith McKeever, who said, “We’re reviewing [the decision], and we’re definitely disappointed.”

The Park Agency claimed during protracted litigation that farm worker housing on Lewis's land violated the state's subdivision rules in the Adirondacks.

Lewis -- and supporters in the farm community -- argued that worker housing is an exempted agricultural activity.

Last July, a state appeals court affirmed Lewis's position on a unanimous vote.

The case has been a public-relations nightmare for the agency.

Last year, the APA's top enforcement attorney handling the case, Paul Van Cott, emailed Lewis, calling him a "sociopath."

Van Cott was later reassigned.

Lewis has since emerged as a prominent anti-APA activist, supporting other legal challenges against the Agency.

Rep. Bill Owens supports President's move to end ban on open gays in military

In an interview with NCPR today, Rep. Bill Owens (D-Plattsburgh) was unambiguous:

"I believe it's appropriate to terminate don't ask, don't tell."

Owens, who represents Fort Drum, says he campaigned on that position last year and has been convinced by military leaders that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is appropriate.

Listen for more tomorrow morning during the 8 O'clock Hour.

The radicalization of the Republican base?

For Reagan-era Republican official and Forbes columnist Bruce Bartlett has a new post on his website titled "Why I'm not a Republican."

It's a fairly caustic broadside:

"I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."

He's reacting to a poll commissioned by the DailyKos website but conducted by the independent pollster, Research 2000.

Put bluntly, the survey found that a significant plurality of self-identified Republicans believe nutty stuff:

Barack Obama should be impeached (39%), Obama is a socialist (63%), Obama is a foreigner masquerading as an American (42%).

When asked if the President "wants the terrorists to win," 57% either said Yes or they weren't sure. (Only 43% rejected the notion outright.)

An astonishing number of Republicans think Mr. Obama "is a racist and hates white people" (23%) or they're "not sure" (33%). (Only 36% reject the notion outright.)

First, I'll make my opinion crystal clear: These views are nuts, bonkers, indefensibly ludicrous.

This is the kind of static that prevents a real and fundamental debate about the hard choices facing America.

Take the most common (and arguably least offensive) conservative attack, that Mr. Obama is a socialist.

In fact, Mr. Obama's agenda falls well within the mainstream of American politics.

At various times, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush (to name two examples) embraced "big government" ideas every bit as ambitious as those of Mr. Obama.

In the 1970s, Mr. Nixon set price controls on gasoline; in the 2000s, Mr. Bush created a vast new centralized education program (No Child Left Behind) and a prescription drug entitlement that cost taxpayers more than $50 billion.

We're they socialists? No. We're their ideas good ones. That's open to debate.

There is, as I've written repeatedly, plenty to dispute in Mr. Obama's policies. In many cases, I'm sure, there are sound, sensible alternatives.

But a political movement that embraces this kind of hysteria is, by its nature, self-limiting.

Americans want answers, good government, policies that improve their lives, and not conspiracy theories.

In the end, these views aren't a problem for Democrats.

They're a problem for Republicans who at some point will recapture the White House and a majority in Congress.

Then they'll have to actually govern.

Can they lead the nation if their base is convinced that liberals are enemies of America and Democrats (the insidious "Democrat Party") are villains out of central casting?

What Avatar and Atlas Shrugged have in common

This week, James Cameron's sci-fi epic "Avatar" was nominated for a best-picture Oscar.

Avatar is a visually spectacular film, but a lot of critics -- especially conservative ones -- have blasted its plot and message.

Here's John Podhoretz, writing in the Weekly Standard.

"The conclusion does ask the audience to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency. So it is a deep expression of anti-Americanism-kind of."

Even the Vatican weighed in, giving a thumbs-down to the pagan spiritualism practiced by the blue-skinned Na'vi.

Conservatives (and Christian traditionalists are right to wrestle with Avatar. It may be the most aggressively political blockbuster in Hollywood history.

Indeed, Cameron's creation has more in common with "Atlas Shrugged" than "Star Wars".

What do I mean?

Like Atlas Shrugged, Avatar lays out a coherent and serious political message, wrapped in the hugely manipulative guise of a potboiler.

Both have cardboard heroes and cardboard villains. Neither have particularly original stories, but they sell their worldview brilliantly.

Like Any Rand, James Cameron treats some of the most pressing issues of our day.

But they don't wrestle with the complexities of the issues. They offer simple, concise answers.

In Rand's novel, long celebrated as a kind of conservative manifesto, pure unfettered capitalism is unerringly moral, a creative force that can only be sullied by evil government bureaucrats and lazy shirkers.

Dagny Taggart, her hero, is brave and sexy. In fact, there's a lot of fairly steamy sex, with some soft-core rough stuff thrown in.

This isn't "A Contract With America." It's a potboiler, a page-turner, and brilliant propaganda.

Same goes for Avatar. Cameron, an Obama-era progressive, is making some very specific points:

-Mercenaries are bad. A lot of critics (including Podhoretz) have gotten this wrong. The soldiers in Avatar aren't "American" soldiers, they're Blackwater-style corporate soldiers-for-hire. At a political moment when the US is outsourcing more and more of its national security -- and when corporations are running more and more American prisons -- it's compellingly topical.

-Exploitation for energy is a reality. In the age of post-peak oil, Cameron is laying out a picture of what we're likely to agree to as a society to grab our own version of 'unobtainium.' His message is clear: If we have to bulldoze native tribes to get our fix of energy, that's what we'll do.

-There is morality in nature. Christians are right to be uncomfortable with Cameron's argument. He's tapping into a growing post-traditional movement in the US, offering a Rousseauian vision of a society living in synch with its environment.

-Corporations are bad. They do amoral things because they have an inherent collective purpose (profit) but no inherent collective morality.

But here's the interesting part.

Unlike most recent filmmakers, Cameron's not just exploring these ideas. He's making a positive declaration.

This isn't art -- with all the nuance, ambiguity and depth that that entails. It's propaganda.

Cameron's Neytiri resembles Dagny Taggart in all but her skin color and big yellow eyes. She's brave, determined and (yes) sexy.

Because Avatar is really really well made propaganda, it will likely be far more influential than, say, "An Inconvenient Truth."

I'm guessing that it the film will outlive Star Wars as a cultural force. Will it outlive Atlas Shrugged?

No. But I'm guessing the two works will sit on the same shelf together, as classics of popular American polemic.

State entity that manages North Country lakes and rivers in crisis

And no, we're not talking about the Adirondack Park Agency or the Department of Environmental Conservation.

Will Doolittle has a great piece in the Glens Falls Post Star this week about the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District.

This is the massive regional public corporation that manages huge swaths of the North Country, from Great Sacandaga Lake to the Black River.

It turns out a court decision in 2008 stripped the HRBRRD of most of its funding, creating a deficit of roughly $4.4 million.

Now the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District is working on a plan to fund its operations by assessing five counties - Warren, Washington, Saratoga, Albany and Rensselaer - for flood control benefits.

As you can imagine, county leaders are ecstatic about picking up the cost for the Regulating District's operations

But as Doolittle reports, there are other ripple effects as well. HRBRRD is supposed to pay property taxes for shorefront land around Great Sacandaga Lake.

Without a revenue stream, however, the state doesn't have any money.

Its inability to pay those taxes this year to local school districts like Broadalbin-Perth is hurting those already-poor districts in an especially difficult budget year.

"They're telling us that they're making efforts to get the money," said Stephen Tomlinson, superintendent of Broadalbin-Perth. "It's money we've been counting on."

The regulating district owes Broadalbin-Perth $256,000 for the current year, and owes $1.4 million to various school districts in the area.

No one disputes that the Regulating District has done its basic job -- preventing flooding on the Hudson and Black Rivers -- really well.

The question now is who will pay for that service to continue?

With new ferry operating in Crown Point, Essex ferry shuts down

There’s more bad news this morning for commuters in the Champlain Valley.

The Lake Champlain Transportation Company says it plans to end ferry service between Essex New York and Charlotte Vermont beginning tomorrow.

That will add hours to the daily drive for hundreds of workers in the mid-Champlain Valley who cross to reach jobs and services in Burlington.

They will now have to drive north to Plattsburgh or south to Crown Point.

According to New York state transportation officials, the ferry now in use at Essex will be shifted south to Crown Point, where a new ferry terminal opened on Monday.

They blamed the change on shifting traffic patterns and ice build-up on the lake.

In recent years, the Essex-Charlotte ferry had remained open through the winter.

The Crown Point-Addison ferry is operating 24 hours a day, seven days of week, carrying cars free of charge.

A new bridge at Crown Point is expected to be built by the summer of 2011.

NY Senate delays confirmation of Hornbeck to Adirondack Park Agency board

New York’s state Senate is delaying confirmation of an Adirondack businessman and environmental activist to the Adirondack Park Agency board.

Peter Hornbeck, a boat builder who lives in Omstedtville, in Essex County, was appointed by Governor David Paterson to serve on the commission last year.

He’s the former chair of a green group called the Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks.

Hornbeck sits now on the board of directors of a newly formed environmental group called Protect the Adirondacks.

That organization is currently suing the APA over its decision not to classify the waters of Lows Lake as wilderness.

Yesterday, the Senate’s Environment committee held a confirmation hearing for Hornbeck, but put off any action.

Hornbeck faces opposition from pro-development and local government groups.

In a statement issued yesterday, Fred Monroe, head of the Local Government Review Board, criticized the governor for not gathering input from elected officials before picking a nominee.

"What ultimately concerns the Review Board is the lack of public announcement about the APA appointment – no public news release, no email. The APA commissioners have direct influence over the lives and livelihoods of everyone who lives inside the Adirondack Park and the private land owned by those people. We believe that Adirondack local governments should have input on the selection of their representatives on the APA."

Hornbeck has been named to replace businessman and resort owner Arthur Lussi from Lake Placid.

Local government leaders have also complained that the APA commission is too heavily weighted with environmentalists.

Three of eight appointed commissioners -- including chairman Curt Stiles -- used to sit on the Adirondack Council's board.

In an interview yesterday with WNBZ radio, the Council's John Sheehan dismissed the idea that the commission is lopsided.

"Well what is the balance? I mean people are complaining about folks having been affiliated with environmental groups who are their neighbors. It's up to the governor to decide who of the Park residents he thinks are best qualified to serve on the Park Agency."