Wizards win two straight against the mighty Boston Celtics. Gilbert who?
The latest in the line of states making global warming policy a reality could be Maryland, whose state legislature will soon be considering its own Global Warming Solutions Act to create a cap-and-trade program and reduce the state’s emissions.
Since the the bill is coming up so early in Maryland’s 2008 General Assembly session, activists are doing their best to make sure strong legislation remains a priority, and they’re calling on voters to turn out and show their support. In fact, they’d like a flood of folks – particularly since Maryland has its share of impacts from climate change. Here are the details from the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who’s been working with the group Alliance for Global Warming Solutions:
What: Flooding Annapolis with Activists to show our support for Global Warming Solutions in Maryland
When: Thursday, January 17th, 2008. 11 am.
Where: Lawyer’s Mall, next to the Maryland State House. Parking is available at the Navy Stadium for $5 a day, and there are free shuttles that go from there to Lawyer’s Mall every 15 minutes.
Why: Because it’s time that Maryland became a national leader on clean energy and global warming solutions.
The agenda for the day will include the introduction of the bill by Senator Paul Pinsky, other legislators signing a pledge to co-sponsor and champion the bill, and a variety of speakers from the student, business, and environmental communities.
If you can make it, be sure to attend and show your support – and then, if you’d be so kind, keep up the momentum so it can roll into the wee neighboring District of Columbia, to our nation’s capital… (or is that too hopeful until 2009?)
“A judge in Nevada has just ordered MSNBC to include Rep. Dennis Kucinich in Tuesday’s Democratic Party presidential debate in Las Vegas or he will cancel the forum. Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson vowed to issue an injunction halting the nationally televised debate if MSNBC failed to comply. Kucinich had filed a lawsuit seeking to be included just this morning.”
I sometimes find myself disturbed by how, um, boring and banal my dreams tend to be. Under the circumstances, I was glad to learn that it’s actually common to dream about your job as I’ve certainly had my fair share of dreams about blogging.
I stand accused — “Yglesias and Marshall are quite busy not readying themselves to own up to the fact that one of their main candidates is using surrogates (in this case, a black surrogate, a fiendishly clever move) to peddle the charge of cocaine use to scare off the white women. Period. That’s what she’s doing.”
Look, I think the idea that I’m turning a blind eye here is dumb. Anyone who reads the blog knows I’d rather see Barack Obama win the nomination than Hillary Clinton. Her campaign’s strategy seems to be to taunt Obama and his supporters into calling her and her campaign a bunch of racists, and then because black people outnumber white people she wins an election that’s all about race. It’s cynical as hell, and I don’t want to be a part of it. Now Bill Clinton’s on the radio whining that Obama called Hillary a racist when Obama never did any such thing.
Nor will I call her one, it’s a red herring that Clinton’s people have injected into the campaign instead of trying to make a stronger affirmative case for their candidate
Let me just fall back to what I’ve said before: I don’t envision core domestic policy issues unfolding incredibly differently in a Clinton or in an Obama administration. I think Barack Obama has given us more indication, both in his record and his proposals, that he’ll pursue the kind of foreign policy we need to get the country on track. I’ll buy that Obama doesn’t have a ton of experience, but the reality is that Clinton doesn’t have a ton either. And while Hillary Clinton can probably win in the general election, I think that the bulk of the evidence supports the idea that Obama would have an easier time — in particular would have an easier time of generating the sort of big win that would be necessary to pass ambitious legislation. Ultimately, that’s what the campaign is about. I won’t even pretend to be appalled by Clinton’s cynicism — the disenfranchisementgambit and all the rest — because, frankly, the idea that Clinton would use dishonest political tactics to beat the GOP is, in my view, probably the most appealing thing about her. At the end of the day, though, while I think she’d be okay it’s always seemed to me that with other viable options in the field it’s made more sense to go with “other options” and now that it’s a clear two-person race, I think Obama is clearly the better option.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) repeatedly and misleadingly labels any gains in Iraq as breathtaking victories. As early as November, he said that “we’ve succeeded militarily.” Last week, he declared that “the surge worked.”
After the Iraqi government this weekend passed its new de-Baathification law — which “would allow thousands of former Baathists who were not involved in past crimes against Iraqis to fill posts in the Shiite-dominated government” — McCain added “political reconciliation” to his victory list. At a campaign stop today, McCain said that the new law is evidence that “we’re succeeding politically”:
Now, six months ago, the Democrats were saying we’ve lost the war militarily. [...]
My friends, you would have to suspend disbelief to believe that it’s not. So then they said, after we succeeded militarily, Well, you can’t succeed politically. You’re not moving forward politically. Well, now we’re succeeding politically.
The right wing is now echoing McCain’s victory celebration. The National Review writes: “Yesterday we were losing in Iraq, today we are winning.” The law has “shown us what real political reconciliation looks like.”
If the new law was good for ex-Baathists, then the ex-Baathists in parliament will have voted for it and praised it, right? And likely the Sadrists (hard line anti-Baath Shiites) and Kurds would be a little upset.
Instead, parliament’s version of this law was spearheaded by Sadrists, and the ex-Baathists in parliament criticized it.
Additionally, barely 150 members of the 275-seat parliament attended the session. The New York Times also notes that the law may actually end up undermining the U.S. strategy of incorporating Sunnis into security forces, as it may exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in, particularly in security ministries.
The U.S. embassy in Iraq was “notably cautious,” refusing to comment a full day after the legislation was passed.
UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman has more.
So Dana Goldstein went and read the Wesley Yang essay on “The Face of Seung-Hui Cho” in N + 1 that I recommended so highly earlier and came away with some criticisms. Or, rather, she came across a somewhat ambiguous passage which, if you construe one way, seems to be making an objectionable claim. When I read that part, I assumed that that wasn’t what Yang was trying to say since, as Dana argues, that wouldn’t be a very smart thing to say.
In general, I think it’s usually wise to be generous in your interpretation of other people’s arguments when they don’t have some kind of bad track record or something. At any rate, Yang himself jumps into the comment thread and says what I would have expected him to say — that’s not what he meant, and the essay isn’t really about why Seung-Hui Cho become a mass murderer at all. Rather, it’s about looking into the face of a mass murderer and seeing and exploring character traits that are much more widespread.
The global warming Deniers (and the rest of us) just can’t catch a break: Vast areas of the Antarctic ice sheet — which has 10 times as much ice as Greenland — is losing mass much faster than anyone expected. And the rate of ice loss has quickened in the last decade. In fact, 2007′s ice loss was 75% higher than 2006′s.
Jeez, it’s almost like … I don’t know … the whole friggin’ planet is melting, and we are to blame! If only we had a group of scientists who would, like, report regularly on the impending catastrophe and explain to us how to avoid it….
As the Washington Post reports:
“Without doubt, Antarctica as a whole is now losing ice yearly, and each year it’s losing more,” said Eric Rignot, lead author of a paper published online in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Note to the Washington Post — one of the many, many reasons traditional media are losing eyeballs to the blogosphere is that your embedded hyperlinks go bizarre places, rather than to, say, the study you are citing!
Here is the link to Nature‘s story on the article (note to Nature — uhh, you folks could include a link to the actual study, too). And here, finally, is the link to the article, “Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling” by Eric Rignot et al. A subscription is required for the whole article, but the abstract is available:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates today forwarded his recommendation to President Bush that approximately 3,000 additional U.S. Marines be sent to Afghanistan to “augment NATO forces” and “thwart an expected spring offensive by the Taliban.” A Pentagon spokesman said that they are still “waiting” for a response from the White House.
I mentioned Jonathan Chait’s great piece on Robert Johnson, HRC’s new best friend, from back when he was George W. Bush’s new best friend earlier today. In light of Johnson’s renewed salience, the article seems to have been rescued from TNR‘s FUBAR archives and is now available here.