One Sky. One Climate. One Future. One Chance.

My partner saw 1 Sky listed on a lawn sign at a neighbor's house today and I like what I see. Global warming/climate change/"the greenhouse effect" is not JUST a serious risk and challenge to us all, but also an incredible opportunity to recognize and reach out as global neighbors all under that.... 1 sky.

Check it out.

Draft Gore!: Will The Nobel Prize for Peace Be The Latest To Name Al Gore Winner?

In the "here's a vote Bush & Cheney, Florida and Ohio can't (literally!) steal from a Democrat!" department.

Also noted at All Things Democrat (by the resident grump - me):

Wish Al Gore the best tomorrow when the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded.

In a year when Bill Clinton’s Veep brought home awards at Cannes, from the Academy AND Emmy awards mostly for his work on educating America and the world about global warming, I would love the tighty righties to have reason to deal with another “Inconvenient Truth” on Friday if the man many want to run for Democratic candidacy for president in 2008 wins. Nods to the folks at DraftGore, too.

[Now if only we could get Henry Kissinger’s peace prize recalled!]

Nods, too, to Doris Lessing, who at 88 today became the oldest person (let alone woman) to win the Nobel prize in literature. Lessing’s work is considered - uh… can you say seminal work when it comes to feminism? - important stuff in understanding women and women’s power.

Bob Herbert: "The Passion Of Al Gore"

[Ed. note: See my post at All Things Democrat for more of what I see as the important differences between true leaders and politicians.]

Herbert has written many powerful columns, but this one hits me just at a time when I find myself (for the first time) really wanting him to run for president in 2008 because I think he may be more than a leader than many of the politicians who do want the job.

Al Gore is earnestly talking about the long-term implications of the energy and climate crises, and how the Arctic ice cap is receding much faster than computer models had predicted, and how difficult and delicate a task it will be to try and set things straight in Iraq.

You look at him and you can’t help thinking how bizarre it is that this particular political figure, perhaps the most qualified person in the country to be president, is sitting in a wing chair in a hotel room in Manhattan rather than in the White House.

He’s pushing his book “The Assault on Reason.” I find myself speculating on what might have been if the man who got the most votes in 2000 had actually become president. It’s like imagining an alternate universe.

The war in Iraq would never have occurred. Support and respect for the U.S. around the globe would not have plummeted to levels that are both embarrassing and dangerous. The surpluses of the Clinton years would not have been squandered like casino chips in the hands of a compulsive gambler on a monumental losing streak.

Mr. Gore takes a blowtorch to the Bush administration in his book. He argues that the free and open democratic processes that have made the United States such a special place have been undermined by the administration’s cynicism and excessive secrecy, and by its shameless and relentless exploitation of the public’s fear of terror.

The Bush crowd, he said, has jettisoned logic, reason and reflective thought in favor of wishful thinking in the service of an extreme political ideology. It has turned its back on reality, with tragic results.

So where does that leave Mr. Gore? If the republic is in such deep trouble and the former vice president knows what to do about it, why doesn’t he have an obligation to run for president? I asked him if he didn’t owe that to his fellow citizens.

If the country needs you, how can you not answer the call?

He seemed taken aback. “Well, I respect the logic behind that question,” he said. “I also am under no illusion that there is any position that even approaches that of president in terms of an inherent ability to affect the course of events.”

But while leaving the door to a possible run carefully ajar, he candidly mentioned a couple of personal reasons why he is disinclined to seek the presidency again.

“You know,” he said, “I don’t really think I’m that good at politics, to tell you the truth.” He smiled. “Some people find out important things about themselves early in life. Others take a long time.”

Read the rest here.

Karl Rove Should Only Hope Sheryl Crowe Would Molest Him

Also posted at All Things Democrat:

All too often, fat men are portrayed as thick-skinned AND jolly. Apparently neither is the case with Bush's (none too brilliant) "brain", Karl Rove.

Read this at Huffington Post about how songstress Sheryl Crowe and "Inconvenient Truth" producer Laurie David (wife of Seinfeld co-creator, Larry David) approached Karl Rove at the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday night only to have Rove freak because they - oh my! - touched his arm, suggested he's supposed to work (since he's paid from our tax dollars) for the American people, and that he needs to take a much smarter look at the issue of global warming.

Hey, maybe Global Warming will be good to Karl: let him sweat off the 100 or so extra pounds and three additional chins he currently sports.

No ass like a righteous Republican ass.

On Reconsidering The "Myth of the Middle"

Steve at The Carpetbagger Report brings up an excellent discussion today:

It’s one of those political truths that “everybody knows” — the party that wins the elusive middle wins the election. It’s all about the “center,” where most Americans are and where campaigns are decided. This seemed particularly true in 2006, when, the conventional wisdom tells us, the middle expressed its disgust with the status quo and backed a divided government so that both sides would govern from the center.

But is any of this true? Political scientist Alan Abramowitz and journalist Bill Bishop suggested this week that we may want to reconsider the “myth of the middle.”

The Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) surveyed more than 24,000 Americans who voted in 2006. The Internet-based survey compiled by researchers at 30 universities produced a sample that almost perfectly matched the national House election results: 54 percent of the respondents reported voting for a Democrat, while 46 percent said they voted for a Republican. The demographic characteristics of the voters surveyed also closely matched those in the 2006 national exit poll. If anything, the CCES respondents claimed they were more “independent” than those in the exit poll.

The CCES survey asked about 14 national issues: the war in Iraq (the invasion and the troops), abortion (and partial birth abortion), stem cell research, global warming, health insurance, immigration, the minimum wage, liberalism and conservatism, same-sex marriage, privatizing Social Security, affirmative action, and capital gains taxes. Not surprisingly, some of the largest differences between Democrats and Republicans were over the Iraq war. Fully 85 percent of those who voted for Democratic House candidates felt that it had been a mistake to invade Iraq, compared with only 18 percent of voters who cast ballots for Republicans.

But the divisions between the parties weren’t limited to Iraq. They extended to every issue in the survey. For example, 69 percent of Democratic voters chose the most strongly pro-choice position on the issue of abortion, compared with 20 percent of Republican voters; only 16 percent of Democratic voters supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, while 80 percent of Republican voters did; and 91 percent of Democratic voters favored governmental action to reduce global warming, compared with 27 percent of Republican voters.

When we combined voters’ answers to the 14 issue questions to form a liberal-conservative scale (answers were divided into five equivalent categories based on overall liberalism vs. conservatism), 86 percent of Democratic voters were on the liberal side of the scale while 80 percent of Republican voters were on the conservative side. Only 10 percent of all voters were in the center. The visual representation of the nation’s voters isn’t a nicely shaped bell, with most voters in the moderate middle. It’s a sharp V.

OK, if this is true, and Abramowitz and Bishop certainly make a compelling case, what does this tell us about how the political process should work?

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure I "buy" that there is so little "middle". But I also wonder if those most willing to participate in surveys are those with strong ideological viewpoints compared with others who may not be willing to discuss national issues.

On Alabama, The Deep South, Killer Tornadoes, and Climate Change

My condolences to all of those severely hurt in Thursday's tornadoes, including the great tragedy at the high school in Enterprise, Alabama.

What I post here is in no way meant to demean what happened, but I feel compelled to say something on this subject.

The number of tornadoes and other manifestations of extreme weather phenomena have increased sharply for decades now, and have been even worse the last seven or so years. That is a given.

Ironically, in recent weeks, I've seen various news outlets talking with people, often in the deep South, including school children and young adults in Alabama and Georgia - two of the states very hard hit by yesterday's killer tornadoes - about climate change/global warming/"An Inconvenient Truth" (Cheney mocked that title earlier today, btw) weather changes. Time and again, I heard these folks - and not all of them were young - pooh pooh the notion of climate change and global warming.

To paraphrase one young man I remember seeing, "I think maybe it's like what the prez and Vice President say, that nobody can tell if the weird weather's got anything to do with a little extra car exhaust and using an air conditioner. Nobody can prove climate change is happening."

Now, I'm not suggesting I hold a 16- or 17-year-old culpable for global warming, I don't. I do hold the Bush Administration at fault, however, for helping to keep people stupid on the subject, with columnists like George S. Will ("Who says we aren't supposed to be this new temperature average? Who says it will harm us?") adding to the dumbing down of America.

But I do think it's the responsibility of every citizen of the globe, including those teenage Kool-aid drinkers in the Deep South, to educate themselves about what is going on with global climate change. And, until they do, perhaps they shouldn't ridicule what they don't understand.

Maureen Dowd: "Ozone Man Sequel"

Here's the latest MoDo; since I offer but a snip, you can find it all at Welcome to Pottersville (leave JP a snack while you're there).

Al Gore now has a movie with an Oscar and a grandson named Oscar.

Who could ask for anything more?

Al Gore could.

The best ex-president who was never president could make one of the most interesting campaigns in American history even more interesting. Will he use his green moment on the red carpet in black tie to snag blue states and win the White House?

Only the Goracle knows the answer.

The man who was prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism and Iraq admitted that maybe his problem had been that he was too far ahead of the curve. He realized at a conference that “there’re ideas that are mature, ideas that are maturing, ideas that are past their prime ... and a category called ‘predawn.’

“And all of a sudden it hit me,” he told John Heilemann of New York magazine last year. “Most of my political career was spent investing in predawn ideas! I thought, Oh, that’s where I went wrong.”

As Mr. Gore basked Sunday night in the adoration of Leo, Laurie David and the rest of the Hollywood hybrid-drivers, Democrats wondered: Is this chubby guy filling out the Ralph Lauren three-piece tuxedo a mature idea or an idea that’s past its prime?

With Hillary overproduced and Barack Obama an unfinished script, maybe it’s time to bring the former vice president out of turnaround.

Hillary’s henchmen try to prognosticate the Goracle’s future by looking at his waistline, according to Newsday; they think if he’s going to run, he’ll get back to fighting weight.

With her own talent for checking the weathervane, Hillary co-opted Mr. Gore’s eco-speak right after the Oscars, talking environment throughout upstate New York. Given his past competition with Hillary, Mr. Gore must have delighted in seeing his star rise in Hollywood as hers dimmed.

If he waits long enough to get into the race, all the usual-suspect-consultants will be booked — which would be a boon for Mr. Gore, since his Hessian strategists in 2000 made him soft-pedal the environment, the very issue that makes him seem most passionate and authentic. The same slides about feedback loops and the interconnectedness of weather patterns that made his image-makers yawn just won his movie an Academy Award.

But what’s going on in his head? Like Jeb Bush, Al Gore was the good son groomed by a famous pol to be president, only to have it snatched away by a black sheep who didn’t even know the name of the general running Pakistan (the same one he just sent Vice to try to push into line.) It must be excruciating not only to lose a presidency you’ve won because the Supreme Court turned partisan and stopped the vote, but to then watch the madness of King George and Tricky Dick II as they misled their way into serial catastrophes.

Even though Chickenhawk Cheney finally got close to combat in Afghanistan, his explosive brush with a suicide bomber has not served as a wake-up call about the danger of Osama bin Laden’s staying on the lam, and Afghanistan’s slipping back into the claws of the Taliban and Al Qaeda while we are shackled to Iraq.

A reporter asked Tony Snow yesterday what the attack on the Bagram Air Base that targeted the vice president and killed at least 23 people said about the Taliban’s strength. “I’m not sure it says anything,” he replied.

Mr. Gore must be pleased that he’s been vindicated on so many fronts, yet it still must rankle the Nobel Peace Prize nominee to hear the White House spouting such dangerous nonsense. He must sometimes imagine how much safer the world would be if he were president.

The Bush-Cheney years have been all about dragging the country into the past, getting back the presidential powers yanked away after Watergate, settling scores from Poppy Bush’s old war, and suppressing scientific and environmental advances. Instead of aiming for the stars, the greatest power on earth is bogged down in poorly navigated conflicts with ancient tribes and brutes in caves.

Read the rest here.

Supreme Court Strips Al Gore of Oscar; Gives It To George W. Bush

Hey, anything can happen in Bush's Amerika. But this - this time, at least - is a Buzzflash parody (thank God).

Paul Krugman: "Colorless Green Ideas"

I found this Paul Krugman column (available in full at Welcome to Pottersville, btw) terrific, but also reminded me of a major columnist (who shall go nameless until his lawyer supposedly talks to my lawyer) who took a certain degree of embrage in an email to me because I mocked some of his views, including one on global warming. Ah, the ties that bind, especially when they're power red ones.

Anyhoo, trying to conserve energy - whether because of global warming and the effects our "temperature adjustment" mechanisms affect it or simply to preserve supplies on non-replenishing fuel sources - should be non-partisan AND color (as in blue vs. red) blind. Here's a snippet:

The factual debate about whether global warming is real is, or at least should be, over. The question now is what to do about it.

Aside from a few dead-enders on the political right, climate change skeptics seem to be making a seamless transition from denial to fatalism. In the past, they rejected the science. Now, with the scientific evidence pretty much irrefutable, they insist that it doesn’t matter because any serious attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions is politically and economically impossible.

Behind this claim lies the assumption, explicit or implicit, that any substantial cut in energy use would require a drastic change in the way we live. To be fair, some people in the conservation movement seem to share that assumption.

But the assumption is false. Let me tell you about a real-world counterexample: an advanced economy that has managed to combine rising living standards with a substantial decline in per capita energy consumption, and managed to keep total carbon dioxide emissions more or less flat for two decades, even as both its economy and its population grew rapidly. And it achieved all this without fundamentally changing a lifestyle centered on automobiles and single-family houses.

The name of the economy? California.

There’s nothing heroic about California’s energy policy — but that’s precisely the point. Over the years the state has adopted a series of conservation measures that are anything but splashy. They’re the kind of drab, colorless stuff that excites only real policy wonks. Yet the cumulative effect has been impressive, if still well short of what we really need to do.

The energy divergence between California and the rest of the United States dates from the 1970s. Both the nation and the state initially engaged in significant energy conservation after that decade’s energy crisis. But conservation in most of America soon stalled: after a decade of rapid progress, improvements in auto mileage came to an end, while electricity consumption continued to rise rapidly, driven by the growing size of houses, the increasing use of air-conditioning and the proliferation of appliances.

In California, by contrast, the state continued to push policies designed to encourage conservation, especially of electricity. And these policies worked.

People in California have always used a bit less energy than other Americans because of the mild climate. But the difference has grown much larger since the 1970s. Today, the average Californian uses about a third less total energy than the average American, uses less than 60 percent as much electricity, and is responsible for emitting only about 55 percent as much carbon dioxide.

Read the rest here.

Well, At Least George S. Will Is Back to Normal

It was getting scary there for awhile as George S. "Red Power Tie" Will made so much sense I occasionally (perhaps as many as three times) quoted him in agreement with something this wingnutter wrote in a column I still don't understand how he rates.

But with last week's column suggesting that "who's to say global warming is bad because who's to say the world should be a "certain" temperature?", and this column saying Democrats who criticize the president lack courage (yes, Bush and Cheney ordering unending war from the sanctity of the White House while the French pastry chef serves them eclairs and Condi Rice pronounces them "brilliant!" takes serious balls), it's nice to know the rest of us can return to ignoring Will.

Hmmm... where was Will during Vietnam? Roosting with the other chickenhawks? Oh wait, there was that married woman he lived in sin with forever before the Right embarrassed him enough to marry her or something like that.

That takes courage, I suppose.