Clodwatch for August 8th, 2008

We have an old saying here in the Clodwatch newsroom: “There’s no kind of clod like the clod that cheats on his wife, suffering from breast cancer, before/during his presidential primary campaign.” Today we honor a man who has just outed himself as just such a clod: John Edwards!

Edwards has done some amazing work here, advancing the work of clod-kind worldwide. Without even getting into the morality of cheating on your wife while she lives with temporarily in-remission cancer, just take a moment to acknowledge the pure claudacity* of what he did.

On the one hand we would have had the hordes of Republicans. Veterans of Monica Lewinsky, bloviators with years of experience talking up the Moral Values crowd. Men and women with no way of life beyond slinging mud. Forget their own indiscretions, never mind the hypocrisy. Every normally venom-toothed liar would have suddenly become gravely offended by the very notion that a human being could do this. Combine their tenacity with the gravity of Edwards’ sins and the ensuing media fecal blast would reach epic heights.

On the other hand we would have had John Edwards, whose affair surely would have been discovered, likely even sooner, running for President on behalf of the Democrats. Democrats in every state from the top end of the ticket all the way down to tiny local posts depend on the presidential candidate to help them out. How could Edwards even consider running, to say nothing of actually making a serious go at it?!

If you ever wonder why the Democrats have spent so long sitting powerless, unable to defeat Republicans, consider this: of the top three Democrats in the presidential primary this year, two have been proven entirely willing to destroy the party, without any real chance of winning in the general election.

John Edwards, you are a clod.




*See what I did there? Yeah.

Who will stand up in Beijing?

40 Years ago it was John Carlos and Tommie Smith.

Smith:

I had asked my wife earlier to bring me a pair of gloves from California. She had not left to come to Mexico yet. So I asked her to bring me gloves after the meeting. And I didn't know what I was going to do with the gloves, but I knew I had to make a representation of my feelings, and it would have to be silent, had to be respectful, and it would have to be visual. And this is the raised fist. I had the right glove, John Carlos had the left glove. They were gloves, which my wife brought from California. And it was a cry for freedom. When both fists went up in the air, very justified in that they went up, not undignified or disrespect to the flag. We did face the flag. We didn't turn our back on the flag. But it was a silent gesture. It was a prayer in hope that our system would become a stronger system in representing all of its people equally, human, and civilly.

Will someone answer the call in Beijing?

Drilling Follow-Up & Climate Change Round-Up

Almost a month ago now, Al Gore gave a speech about climate change. For our discussion, here are the relevant parts:

Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they’re going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again...

If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.

However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline...

This is pretty much what I was getting at in my last post. It may – and I stress "may," because my guess is that it will hardly make a difference – make sense to go along with Republican demands for offshore drilling as a tool to get better legislation passed in the future. But at best it's nothing but a distraction, and it's part of the strategy that got us here in the first place, that will probably make things worse rather than better.

It just doesn't make any sense to invest money in oil. Not now, not ever again. As Rupert Murdoch puts it, "acting on this issue is simply good business." "Whatever it costs will be minimal compared to our overall revenues, and we'll get that back many times over, by running a more efficient company..." The argument for renewable energy makes sense on an economic level alone, without the need for prophesies of disastrous global climate shifts.

Gore continued:

So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge — for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It’s time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.

Politically, Gore's challenge is insane. In fact, when I first heard it I assumed that he was putting the mark high so that people would compromise towards a possible reasonable solution. How on earth can we hit 100% in the next 10 years? Granted, zero-carbon electricity includes nuclear power, and the price of oil has makes it more economically understandable – but 100%?

Then I took a closer look at the causes and rates of global warming itself, and Gore's challenge started looking extremely conservative.

Last week, onehundredmonths.org/ was launched on the premise that we have "one hundred months" before climate change reaches a tipping point past which we will probably not be able to stabilize the earth's rising temperature at safe levels. Here are some specifics from their (PDF) technical report:

We calculate that 100 months from 1 August 2008, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will begin to exceed a point whereby it is no longer likely we will be able to avert potentially irreversible climate change. 'Likely' in this context refers to the definition of risk used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to mean that, at that particular level of greenhouse gas concentration, there is only a 66 - 90 per cent chance of global average surface temperatures stabilising at 2º Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Once this concentration is exceeded, it becomes more and more likely that we will overshoot a 2º C level of warming. This is the maximum acceptable level of temperature rise agreed by the European Union and others as necessary to retain reasonable confidence of preventing uncontrollable and ultimately catastrophic warming. We also believe this calculation to be conservative.

Now, it may seem disingenuous to call a 10-34% chance "likely." But for one thing, you have to understand that this is science we're talking about here: even the ability to predict something on that scale is cause for enormous alarm, particularly when the predictions are based on conservative assumptions. Further, the real question here is when we'll reach a carbon concentration that will cause uncontrollable rising temperatures. They're not trying to predict the chance of global warming having any large-scale impact – at this point, that seems unavoidable, since climate changes are already causing massive extinction. They're trying to predict the chance of an unpreventable cascade effect with catastrophic consequences. An effect that already has a possibility of happening, regardless of what we do. An effect that becomes more and more likely the longer we wait.

In light of that, I actually take issue with their name – one hundred months sounds like a lot, doesn't it? In fact, 100 months is almost precisely the length of the next two presidential terms: 8.3 years from August, 2008 takes us to December, 2016. The burden for dealing with this crisis therefore falls primarily on the shoulders of our next elected president. And let's be clear: 8.3 years is also a lot less than Gore's 10 when you're talking about the total revision of national energy infrastructure, since even if we strongly committed to renewables we wouldn't hit really effective levels of change until we'd been working at it for years. Do we really have the extra two years to spare, here?

The problem is progressive, after all: the slower we are to take action, the harder it will be to have an effect – the further up the scale those percentages shift. Remember, global oil consumption is still on the rise, with the United States responsible for the largest single contribution but with developing Asian countries (particularly China) responsible for most of the upward trend. So we not only need to remove our massive contribution to carbon emissions, we need to set an example that could be followed, as quickly as possible, by nations that will have a more difficult time making the switch than we will. Gore's challenge, of course, only applies to the United States.

Gas crisis? Nonsense: it's downright lucky that we're running out of cheap oil right now.

I hardly need to tell readers of this blog that Obama's energy plan kicks the crap out of McCain's energy plan, which focuses on additional drilling, "clean coal" and nuclear power. More difficult to come to terms with is the fact that neither plan is good enough. Specifics aside, the environmental upshot of Obama's plan is to:

•Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025
•Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

So, the better candidate – better by far – wants to enact 1/4 of an already inadequate plan to prevent cascading, chaotic changes in the world's climate, in nearly twice the time of said inadequate plan.

These people are going to kill us all.

She just won't go away

This is fantastic:

DENVER — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking a way for her delegates to be heard at the Democratic National Convention, telling supporters such a step will help unify a party that split between her and Sen. Barack Obama during their hard-fought nominating contest.
"I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified," Clinton, D-N.Y., told supporters last week at a California fundraiser.
A video clip of her remarks was posted on YouTube. "Because I know from just what I'm hearing, that there's incredible pent up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, 'OK, it's a catharsis, we're here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.' That is what most people believe is the best way to go," she said.
The former first lady did not rule out the possibility of having her name placed into nomination at the convention, being held Aug. 25-28 in Denver. But she also said no decisions had been made.

Yeah, pointing out that not everyone at the convention wanted Barack to be the nominee, when some of them are mentally deficient enough to believe it was stolen from them. That sounds just like the unity that the convention is supposed to bring.

From Time Magazine:

In private conversations, associates say, Clinton remains skeptical that Obama can win in the fall. That's a sentiment some other Democrats believe is not just a prediction but a wish, because it would prove her right about his weaknesses as a general-election candidate and possibly pave the way for her to run again in 2012. Clinton is also annoyed that Obama has yet to deliver on his end of an informal bargain, reached as part of their truce, that each would raise $500,000 for the other. "Hillary has done her part in that regard," says an adviser. "Obama has not."

Underlying it all is a feeling on Clinton's part that Obama has never shown proper regard for a campaign she believes was as historic an achievement as his. True, Obama has asked Clinton to give a prime-time speech on the second night of the convention later this month. But as the odds that she will be Obama's running mate have faded, there are signs that Clinton's backers could demand one last show of respect before Obama claims the nomination in Denver. Clinton has been giving tacit encouragement to suggestions that her name be placed in nomination at the convention, a symbolic move that would be a reminder of the bruising primary battle. "No decisions have been made," Clinton said when asked in California — to whoops and applause — about that possibility. Still, it was hard to miss what Clinton would like to see in the pointed way she added, "Delegates can decide to do this on their own. They don't need permission."

First off, this informal bargain sounds fantastic to me. Hillary Clinton tells her fundraisers that it's ok to raise money for the Democratic nominee for president, while Barack Obama tells people who could be giving their money to his campaign or hundreds of races across the country that it's better to fund a union buster and pay for relentless attacks on the Democratic nominee that occurred after the race was mathematically over. Sounds like a good deal to me, what about you?

This is diva behavior that would make Brett Favre blush. "Clinton's backers could demand one last show of respect?" How about this demand:

Support the nominee or fuck off.

That type of unity seems just fine to me.

Update: So when Hillary said in that thing in the primary and everyone was like wow, you know that's going to go right into McCain's ads? Well here is McCain's new ad, and keep in mind the other dems praising him are all from way back in the day. All except for one that is...

Daschle: "He can work with Democrats on key issues."

Biden: "I would be honored to run with or against John McCain ."

Kerry: "He is a courageous, patriotic American who stands up for what he believes."

Dean: "Nobody has to guess at what he’s thinking,"

Feingold: "I love John McCain . He’s a great guy."

snip

Then the ad shows Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama testifying before a Senate committee that the "right approach" to climate change legislation is one that begins with a plan offered by McCain and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman , I-Conn.

It closes with Obama’s primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton , D-N.Y., saying "I know that Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House, and Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002" — a reference to the speech Obama delivered against the Iraq war when he was a state senator in Illinois.

Wow. You know you've done a good job if your attack from the primary can include praise of the Republican candidate as a way of bashing the Democratic candidate, and then be used in a Republican attack ad without edits. But forget about this stuff for the moment. It took a lot of money to have Mark Penn come up with something like that, so open up your wallets and make sure you pay him for it.

The idea that people should help pay back her debt is by far the most insane and illogical event of the 2008 election cycle. Nothing else even comes close.

The Train of Thought Lounge: Fiona Apple & Elvis Costello

I've been really feeling unlikely collaborations and cross-genre covers, as I've highlighted in this space before. Well, here goes another one, this time from tortured-soul songstress Fiona Apple and rock-and-roll icon Elvis Costello.

Apple's haunting piano compositions made me a fan of hers, with "Tidal," "When The Pawn Hits...," and "Extraordinary Machine" all in heavy rotation in my iTunes library. She hit huge commercial success with the song "Criminal" in the mid-90's, but I feel like people were more obsessed with its risque music video. She sort of faded from the public eye after that but she is not a one-hit wonder pop artist, she is a damn good singer-songwriter.

I'm unfortunately not as familiar with as much of Costello's catalog, but after hearing this song, I'll definitely need to get up to speed. This video features the two of them performing the song live, with Apple providing the vocals for Costello's composition. I swear, if I ever wrote a song this good, I would walk around carrying a giant radio blasting it like that guy in Say Anything, forcing everyone to listen to it at all times.

Enjoy!

Fiona Apple & Elvis Costello - I Want You

Zorn to receivers: "F*** the bulls***"

Though met with raised eyebrows at the time, the decision to hire Jim Zorn as head coach of the Redskins in beginning to look more and more like the right one. This has nothing to with the team winning its first pre-season game, or the fact that Zorn sounds like an alien overlord from a bad sci-fi movie (ALL HAIL ZORN!!! RULER OF THE KINGDOM OF THE SEVEN SUNS!).

I was very impressed when I saw this:

Washington Redskins Coach Jim Zorn chided Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas yesterday for their lack of conditioning and said he anticipates the injured rookie wide receivers will have a hard time having an impact on the offense early this season...

"I've had this happen in other places I've coached, and it's very difficult," Zorn said of young wide receivers missing training camp time. "When you interview them, 'It's going to be easy.' They're going to walk around and go: 'This is nothing. I'll get this right away.' But once they get out there and they really see what they have to do and how exact they have to be and the speed at which they have to play and the intensity -- then I think they'll see. Now, can we get them in and work them in? Yes. Will they get up to speed? Yes. But this is valuable time."

Not only is it great to see Zorn lighting a fire under these two rookies, but this is really a new side of him that no one really knew or thought was there. He comes off very quiet and unassuming, almost as much of a "Nervous Nellie" type as his predecessor, Joe Gibbs. But on the sidelines this past Sunday, Zorn was calm, collected and almost emotionless, looking every bit the part of NFL head coach. I wonder if they teach Holmgren & co. to look like that as part of the West Coast offense?

Now, I'm not flying off the deep end. As refreshing as it was to see Zorn's offense run smoothly, we must take into account that it came against an Indianapolis Colts team playing virtually no starters and who also have five pre-season games, so it's not like players are really breaking their backs for that first game (especially on defense). However, Zorn is taking major steps to reassuring me that he might have been the right choice after all. While I'm not as worried he'll be a liability as I was before, let's see him keep up the good work as we approach that September 4th opener against the reigning champs.

I definitely hate her a little less now

This is basically fantastic, as it mockingly takes everyone in the political system to task for not knowing what the hell they're talking about. Who would've thought that I'd ever [intentionally] spread a video starring Paris Hilton?

Unfortunately for Paris (and McCain and Obama, since they actually all agree on this), she's wrong that we can have it both ways on offshore drilling and alternative energy. In fact, given the long investigation and construction time needed for effective platforms, the argument for increased drilling is less coherent when combined with a true commitment to renewable energy.

The primary effect of new oil-gathering measures will be to distract people from the problem by making them feel like something is being done. It's political, not rational, and making decisions on those terms is a mistake with long-term consequences. There's genuine reason to be worried about this issue, and we shouldn't be lulled into false sense of security. There's no quick fix. Any real solution will require years of careful, difficult construction and investment, because renewable sources of energy are expensive to install. In the meantime, we shouldn't do something destructive just because it seems like it's the easy way out.

If we take the concept of renewable energy seriously, after all, then the economic benefits of increased drilling won't be felt until the point at which we should be seriously phasing out our use of petroleum-based energy anyway. Such a serious commitment to new sources of oil is like betting the losing hand when we already know the cards. Worst of all, not only does the construction of new platforms come at significant environmental cost, it requires an investment of time and money that should be going towards the development and subsidization of renewables. Gas may be expensive now, but it's only going to get worse. We can either make the necessary long-term investments in green energy now, or we can wait until we're paying $8 a gallon before we address the actual problem. Every dollar spent on drilling makes things worse.

Of course, given the recent panic over gas prices, it's easy to forget that the scarcity of oil has been within the sphere of national consciousness since the 1970s, and that many of the obvious solutions have remained expensive primarily due to the lack of demand for mass production. We don't really have an excuse other than laziness, here: while solar energy undeniably costs quite a bit, for example, any given panel will pay for itself within a matter of years. Furthermore, on a personal level, the initial cost can take the form of time rather than money: here are some (admittedly complicated) instructions for building a cheap (~$100) solar panel all by oneself.

On the plus side, solar panels have apparently been back on the White House roof since 2003 due to a unilateral decision by the Park Service (which maintains the White House). I actually got a chance to see the original White House solar panels at an exhibition at the Canadian Centre For Architecture in Montreal over spring break. Panels that Carter installed in response to the oil crises of the '70s, and that Ronald Reagan had taken down shortly after assuming the presidency. Exactly why he did that, I cannot say. Presumably, it was just to be an asshole.


(Another fun fact: did you know that the first patented life form was a bacteria engineered to efficiently turn oil into edible simple proteins? I'm not implying a conspiracy here, since I know to a near certainty that the creator had the best of intentions. But isn't it a little telling that the patenting of the first organism – an act that literally invented contemporary commercial biotechnology – was for something to clean up oil spills? It's all related, I tell you.)