"Crazy Weather We're Having" as the Planet Lurches Toward the Tipping Point

Barely a month goes by these days when a weather related story doesn't include a comment along the lines of "the worst/most powerful/deadliest/costliest event since weather records have been kept." June 2007 was no exception: Cyclone Ganu struck the Persian Gulf threatening the world's oil supply. Devastating wildfires in Tahoe blazed for days, reinforcing a frightening new reality; the California fire season now lasts year-round. Dozens of towns in Great Britain and Texas were flooded due to unprecedented torrential rains. In Pakistan, 800,000 people were displaced due to a severe cyclone this past week. When aid failed to arrive, riots ensued.

These are precisely the types of climatological events scientists - and Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance - predicted would become commonplace as the planet's temperature rose. The costs of these disasters are staggering - both financially and socially. The flooding in Britain alone is estimated to exceed $1 billion pounds - and the rains haven't stopped yet.

Beyond the obvious fact that it's getting pretty expensive to do nothing about global warming, I wonder, is it too late to rescue the planet? Al Gore doesn't think so - and he believes you and I are the ones with the power to save the earth.

Gore, writing an Op-Ed piece titled "Moving Beyond Kyoto,"in today's New York Times, says the United States must step forward and provide the moral leadership needed to address global warming. And America must do it now. He begins:

WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Gore calls on the American people to stand up and demand action of our political leaders. He proposes a new climate treaty aiming to reduce global warming pollution by 90%. He sets a two-year timetable - he envisions this new agreement completed by 2009. The need is urgent and requires immediate action. A consensus can - and must - be built. He writes:

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.

On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this
world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.

Can Gore finally build the global consensus needed to achieve his vision? Despite sounding this alarm for more than fifteen years, far too many Americans remain in denial about global warming's dangers. Many others - including this writer - have not made the adjustments in our daily lives necessary to reduce our individual impact on the planet. Too often, the change is "inconvenient." In many homes and businesses, simply recycling newspapers, bottles and cans is considered too much of a hassle. Now, I'm no scientist, but reducing global warming pollution by 90% would likely require changes the average citizen would view as going far beyond recycling and carpooling.

When then-Sen Gore wrote Earth in the Balance it was a powerful expose on how human activity in the industrial age had dramatically - and negatively - impacted the earth's ecosystem. As a result, the planet - and human civilization - teetered on the edge of catastrophe. Addressing the situation required political courage and leadership. Gore wrote back then:

I have become very impatient with my own tendency to put a finger to the political winds and proceed cautiously.... [E]very time I pause to consider whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts [on the environment crisis] that continue to pour in from around the world and conclude that I have not gone far enough.... [T]he time has long since come to take more political risks--and endure more political criticism--by proposing tougher, more effective solutions and fighting hard for their enactments.

Sadly, our leaders did not take brave political risks. Instead, Congress failed to even ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The American people were not asked to fundamentally change their living patterns. Rather, we drove bigger, less fuel-efficient cars on longer commutes to our McMansions filled with an ever-expanding array of energy consuming electronic gadgets. I hate to say this but sacrifice and moral leadership may be characteristics of bygone American generations.

The book was controversial and many political opponents dismissed Gore's warnings as unfounded hysteria. Gore was roundly attacked by big business and their lackeys in the Republican Party. A coordinated and well-funded campaign to debunk the theory of global warming was so effective that the term itself became ineffective. This is why "global warming" has been replaced by the more innocuous "climate change."

But, let's be clear, the failure to act has been bipartisan. Democrats have undoubtedly been more receptive to green positions and have favored environmental regulations, but our leaders certainly have not been the risk-takers Gore demanded them - and himself - to be.

While the politicians dithered and the populace consumed, the planet kept getting hotter.

And the tipping point - the moment from which there is no return - approaches, more rapidly than the scientists predicted in the early 1990s. The Arctic ice sheets are melting faster than any of the models forecast. There are indications the North Atlantic Gulf Stream current is slowing down, which could have catastrophic consequences on Europe's climate in coming decades. Weather has become more severe and extreme. Droughts are drier and longer. Hurricanes are more powerful and more frequent.

In order to avert catastrophe Gore observes, "individual action will also have to shape and drive government action." Apparently, he has lost his faith in the politicians providing the leadership necessary. He goes on, "Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success."

This Saturday, on 7/7/07, the Live Earth concerts will launch Gore's global campaign of "individual action." Every member of the listening audience - an estimated 2 billion people - will be asked to sign The Live Earth Pledge (you can sign it now if you care to). It's the first step in the three year global campaign to unite humanity against a universal threat - ourselves.

Let's hope we're not too late.

NV-03: DCCC Launching Radio Ads Against Porter

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is showing just how serious they are about winning Rep. Jon Porter's Las Vegas area seat in the 2008 elections. Seventeen months before election day (and without a top tier Democratic challenger yet to jump into the race), the DCCC has launched a radio ad campaign targeting Porter's votes on veteran's benefits. Porter is one of seven GOP lawmakers included in this campaign timed to correspond to the July 4th celebrations.

The DCCC states, "Porter voted to cut funding for veterans by $6 billion, while also opposing equipment repair and quality of life enhancements for troops." For full audio of the radio ad can be found here: Fight Back for Veterans.

The Las Vegas Journal Review provides details and Porter's reaction:

The ads are scheduled to be broadcast on KXNT-AM and KWNR-FM. Porter and six other Republicans are being hit with the radio ads, while seven other Republicans are being blasted through automated phone calls and e-mails.

Porter spokesman Matt Leffingwell called the ads misleading. While Porter voted against an amendment to give $1,500 bonuses to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, he later voted for a $5,500 pay increase for military personnel, Leffingwell said.

Leffingwell noted that all the votes referred to in the ads occurred between 2003 and 2006 and were used against him in last year's campaign. "We're glad the Democrats believe in recycling, but recycling the same old talking points is disingenuous," he said.

Porter in 2006 defeated his Democratic challenger, first-time candidate Tessa Hafen, by fewer than 4,000 votes. Leffingwell said the radio ads were a good sign because they showed that Democrats know it will be difficult to defeat Porter.

"They obviously feel that the congressman knows how to run tough elections, and they have to start early in our district," Leffingwell said.

That's an interesting spin from the Porter people. Campaign committees don't choose to jump into a race this early if they think the incumbent is safe, Mr. Leffingwell. Usually, they invest in the races where the incumbent if vulnerable. Porter barely scraped by in 2006, beating Dem nominee Tessa Hafen by only 4000 votes. It looks like the D-trip is aiming to close the gap and win this district in 2008.

And, the video from the DCCC:

Defenders of Wildlife UPDATE (w/video)

This was posted last week. Now, the video is available.

According to the press release announcing the "Heads in the Sands" campaign, the Defenders of Wildlife Action Council provides the deails of the recently launched integrated radio and internet ad campaign targeting Rep. John Doolittle (CA-04), Ken Calvert, (CA-44), Steve Pearce (NM-02), Rick Renzi (AZ-01) and Dean Heller (NV-02).

"Americans want action now on global warming,” said Defenders Action Fund President Rodger Schlickeisen. “But extreme anti-environmentalists in Congress, epitomized by these five, continue to have their heads stuck in the sand on energy policy while taking money from big oil and polluters. We’re launching the ‘Heads in the Sand’ campaign to hold these members accountable to their constituents.”

If the wildlife group replicates its 2006 results, all five should be placed on the "Endangered Species List."

In addition to the high-profile and coordinated campaign against Pombo, "America's #1 Wildlife Villain," the Action Fund targeted 19 more races in the midterm elections as part of their Conservation Majority Project. They won in 14 of the 20 races, helping defeat previously entrenched incumbents in every region of the country.

So, these Western lawmakers should be afraid. Very afraid.

Renzi and Doolittle are targets of ethical and legal investigations, so the added muscle of a coordinated green effort may be the momentum to push them from office. Calvert, who replaced Doolittle on the Appropriations Committee in May, joins Renzi and Doolittle on CREW's list of the 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress.

Heller is a freshman who the NRCC has acknowledged as one of their most vulnerable members, and is included in the ROMP (Regain Our Majority Program). And Pearce's southern New Mexico district has a significant Dem voter registration advantage (48-36%). All of these districts represent an aggressive expansion of the Democratic playing field in our efforts to expand the House Democratic Majority.

The theme of the campaign is "Heads in the Sand" ~ the animated ads have a "Pixar-feeling." This is the one targeting Doolittle:



From the video: "The rising sea stuff, that's like the theory of gravity."

"Could some of you grown-ups talk to this guy? Tell John Doolittle it's time to get his head out of the sand. We need action on global warming now."

To check out the two recent "Global Warming" PSAs created by Defenders of Wildlife, click here.

Race Tracker wikis: AZ-01, CA-04, CA-44, NV-02, NM-02

Ann or Frank - Who is More Dangerous to the Democrats?

This week, two influential Republican media figures garnered attention. Over the years, one has sought notoriety and scandal, while the other has subtly lurked below the radar screen. The former is providing cover for the latter - and Democrats need to understand the danger.


Ann Coulter has slithered her way back from France (yes, believe it or not she vacationed in the land of baguettes and patisseries) to reinsert herself LOUDLY (and obscenely) into the American political dialogue. Frank Luntz, the spinmeister extraordinaire, also surfaced and made waves when PBS announced he would be conducting a focus group during this Thursday's Democratic presidential forum at Howard University. The difference is (and this is big, folks) Ann wants the spotlight while Frank most assuredly doesn't. Sadly, we've given them both what they want.


We should be focusing on Frank and ignoring Ann.


Let me say before I begin: freedom of speech is a paramount -American- human right. I am not advocating that either Luntz (let's call him FLuntz) or Coulter (is there something that rhymes with FLuntz? I'm at a loss...well, let's just call her Ms. Coulter) be silenced or denied their right to express their opinions. I do, however, have a problem with the MSM providing Ms. Coulter a bully pulpit to loudly shout her vulgar and personal attacks while simultaneously whitewashing FLuntz's partisan agenda and presenting him as an objective political analyst.


But, I have to be honest, I'm just as disappointed in the reaction of the progressive blogosphere this week. We've fallen into the trap. Ms. Coulter's outrageous statements attract a majority of the attention, yet FLuntz practically skates.

Watch the video where Bill Maher says, "the people in America are like hamsters" and ask yourself, am I on the habitrail?



Remember, it's not what you say, it's what people HEAR.

Luntz is responsible for redefining the estate tax as the "death tax." And creating the "Global War on Terror" marketing slogans. And advises Rudy Giuliani. What is non-partisan about FLuntz?

You simply gotta love Paula Poundstone and Arianna. Arianna sums it up, "people should stop listening to Frank."

So, why is he going to be on PBS talking about the Democratic presidential race?And, by singularly focusing on Ms. Coulter's obscenities are we playing the fool?

CA-26: Warner Jumps Into Race to Challenge Dreier

Democrat Russ Warner, who ran in 2006 but came up short against Cynthia Rodriguez Matthews, is back to win this seat for the Democrats in 2008. Matthews may also be running, but her lackluster general election campaign in '06 left many local progresssive activists disappointed.

The local experts over at Calitics have full details about the announcement and the 2006 race. An excerpt from Warner's press release announcing his candidacy focuses on Iraq:

"I am taking on this fight because the war in Iraq must be stopped and because America needs new leadership not career politicians like David Dreier who have become a part of the problem in Washington, D.C.," said Warner, a Rancho Cucamonga businessman.
"Unfortunately we are represented in Congress by a man who has been there for 28 years, has failed to lead and instead become a mouthpiece and rubber stamp for the Bush Administration's war policy and failed agenda."
The devastating cost of this war was brought home to Warner and his family in a personal way. Warner's son Greg served in the U.S. Army and was sent to Iraq for 17 months.
"My son served this country honorably and witnessed first hand the failed policy in Iraq. His service and his sacrifice inspired me to stand up and speak out, and that's why I made the decision to run for Congress. We need to support our troops by bringing them home, and when they come home, we must ensure they have access to the medical care that they need and deserve," Warner said.

Despite the Republican leanings of the district (GOP registration leads Dems by 44-34), 14 term incumbent David Dreier has won his last two re-elections by 57% (2006) and 54% (2004), surprisingly low totals for an incumbent with tenure dating back to 1980.

There are many factors contributing to Dreier's weakness, including rumors about his sexual orientation and immigration stands that don't endear him to the traditional GOP base.

This is a district California Democrats CAN move to our column.

Help turn this district blue by donating here.

Register to Vote! - California

CA-26 wiki

What Will the Democrats Do About the Wizard of Wyoming?

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and My Left Wing.

The revelations in this week's WaPo series on -Vice- President Cheney finally reveal what many of us have believed all along. The nation should have been paying MUCH more attention to the little man behind the curtain. It turns out, unlike the one in Oz, the Wizard of Wyoming IS great and all powerful.

Now that the rest of America has been awakened to this sinister and unchecked "FourthBranch" (h/t to dday) operating within the federal government what are our Democratic presidential candidates going to do about it?

Glad you asked...let's take a look.

Sadly, there's been mostly silence from our would-be leaders.

A review of the candidates websites was resoundingly disappointing as I looked for substantial reactions from our Democratic Presidents-in-Waiting. To be fair, Sen. Obama did issue a press release yesterday saying:

Chicago, IL June 25, 2007
Chicago, IL-Senator Obama today released the following statement on Vice President Cheney's attempts to prevent public scrutiny of his office.

"Throughout this administration, Vice President Cheney has consistently sought to operate in secrecy and thwart rules designed to ensure the public's right to know how their business is being done. I believe strongly that democracy works best when it does its work in the daylight. In an Obama Administration, we will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history so that we can restore an open, honest government that finally makes real progress on the challenges facing the American people."

Yes, Senator, fine and dandy. But, WTF are you going to do about the current situation?

Hillary? Silence. Someone on her web development team might want to make the site searchable, I couldn't find a Search function anywhere. Practically every press releaseis about endorsements and polls. (I've got lots to say about that, but I'll bite my tongue for now).

John Edwards? Quite a few policy statements discuss Cheney's role in energy and military policy, but nothing (at least that I could find) about the WaPo series. Biden has some press releases about Iraq & Employee Free Choice. Good, important stuff but nothing about Cheney. Over at Richardson's website it was more of the same. The deafening silence continued on Sen. Gravel's and Dodd's websites.

I thought for sure Kucinich, the sponsor of impeachment articles, would have something to say but the most recent press release is from June 8 - and it's about new campaign television ads. A "search" for Cheney brings up four press releases on the Cheney articles of impeachment Kucinich has proposed in the House, but the most recent is from mid-April. NOTE TO HILLARY - even Kucinich's website has a "search function."

I'm on practically every campaign's email list - and I don't recall seeing any of them mention this - yet. I understand this is the last week of the fundraising quarter and they're focused on the money race, but come on folks. Perhaps the candidates are out on the campaign trail discussing this, but I have a hunch they're not. [of course, if someone has information I've overlooked, please let me know and I'll revise the post]

I wonder to myself, what's missing? Intelligence? Passion? Courage?

Is it intelligence? Perhaps the Democrats don't grasp the seriousness of Cheney's outside the rule of law, behind the scenes manipulations? When Harry Reid said a while back, "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating," he revealed the depth of the Democrats ignorance regarding Cheney. They think it's a popularity contest.

Don't they see? Fourthbranch wanted (and needed) the Democrats to dismiss him as a result of his abysmal approval ratings. While the Dems were telling jokes about his hunting expeditions, Dick was hard at work dismantling our constitutional system of checks and balances, redefining the powers of the executive branch, destroying our military and endorsing -torture- creative interrogation techniques. Now we know what Dick's been smirking about all these years.

The time for "name-calling" has long since past, Senator Reid. Even Dorothy's Scarecrow could understand that. And he didn't have a brain.

Could the silence be due to a lack of passion? The Democratic base is more engaged, enraged and committed than it has been in years - perhaps ever. This has translated into huge gains for the Democratic Party across the nation. But it's unclear (to this observer) that this passion is understood (or shared) by our elected leaders. Like the Tin Man, it might be time to find out if the DC Democrats have a heart.

Or have our "leaders" chosen to remain silent because by acknowledging what's gone on in this administration may lead them to the inevitable conclusion - the Vice President's actions demand impeachment hearings? Clearly, we've got ourselves a pride of Cowardly Lions roaming the halls of Congress and the presidential campaign trail.

We all know how Dorothy and her pals eventually discover their "missing" qualities residing within. And, I'm going to hold out hope the Democrats can find theirs, too.

On Thursday night, all eight of the candidates will gather at Howard University at a PBS-sponsored debate moderated by Tavis Smiley. I'm interested to hear what our candidates have to say about the WaPo revelations.

Now that the Fourth Estate has finally done it's job, it's time for our democratic leaders to do theirs.

CA-04: FBI Targeting Doolittle Aides

Reports in the SF Chronicle about Rep. John Doolittle's former chief of staff cooperating with the FBI's investigation into the Republican's connections with imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff can't be good news. How long will it take the feds to make their case is an unanswered question and lingers over the race in the GOP-leaning district. From the AP report:

The aide, David Lopez, who was Doolittle's longtime chief of staff until 2005 and continued to work on his campaigns after that, has turned over campaign finance records to the Justice Department under subpoena, said his attorney, Bill Portanova.
A different former Doolittle staffer, Kevin Ring, who went on to work as a lobbyist with Abramoff, was already known to be under investigation in the wide-ranging probe. Portanova's comments marked the first public confirmation that prosecutors have been interviewing other former Doolittle aides.

Will Doolittle see the handwriting on the walls and decide to retire in 2008? Or, will he try to hang on, providing a very real chance for Democrat Charlie Brown to win this seat? Time will tell.

Help Dump Doolittle by donating here.
CA-04 racetracker wiki.